IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11946 of 2010 SHEIK REYAZUL HASSAN @ REYAZUL HAQUE, S/O NOOR HASSAN, R/O VILLAGE LAL PARSA, POLICE STATION-SIKTA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, BETTIAH, POLICE STATION-BETTIAH, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN, 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS OFFICER NARKATIAGANJ, POLICE STATION-SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN, 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARKATIAGANJ, POLICE STATION SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN, 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, SIKTA, POLICE STATION-SIKTA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN, 5. GANESH PRASAD, SON OF LATE JAGDEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LAL PARSA, POLICE STATION-SIKTA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………….Respondents. ----------- 03 12.01.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, respondent no. 5 and the State. Petitioner has filed the present writ application seeking quashing of order dated 3.10.2008, passed by respondent-Collector Bettiah, District-West Champaran in R. M. Case No. 57 of 2004-05 (Sheikh Reyazul Hasan Vrs. Ganesh Prasad). The operative portion of the order reads as under:- “Perused the L.C. record and found that the submission of the Id. Advocate of the respondent is true. There is no report in L.C. record regarding the possession of the appellant over 4 dhurs of land of plot no. 568 rather the entire L.C. record shows that the 11 dhurs of land of both the plot are in actual physical possession of the respondent and one dhur of land of plot no. 568 has been encroached 2 by the appellant. Order pf Id.S.D.M. passed in a proceeding u/s 145 cr.p.c. is also not helping the appellant because it has been passed u/s 145 (5) of the cr.p.c. stating therein that the matter relates to title and this court has got no jurisdiction and on that observation the proceeding was dropped. So far the registered sale deed and khesta sale deed are concerned the registered sale deed shall prevail over the khesta is the mutation was done on the basis of sale deed in the year 1930. Now the appellant can not claim over the land on the basis of khesta. As the right and title over the land is concerned it is shall be declared by the competent civil court and further as far as the matter is concerned for rent fixation it was done by the lower court on the basis of registered sale deed executed in the year 1930 and the same was unchallenged. The court below has rightly passed the order of rent fixation and I find that no illegality is in the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Sikta, D.C.L.R. and S.D.O. Narkatiaganj.” Petitioner claims right title and possession over the land in question by reason of a Khesta sale deed executed in his favour in the year 1927 by one Laxman Dusadh, one of the Raiyats recorded in respect of the lands in question appertaining to Khata No. 59, Plots no. 568. According to the petitioner, a total area of 4 dhurs was purchased by reason of the aforesaid unregistered sale 3 deed. On the other hand, the case of the private respondent no. 5 is that they purchased 11 dhurs of land appertaining to the same Khata and plot number from one Jiut Dusadh by reason of a registered sale deed executed in his favour in the year 1930. Since the lands were Belagan lands, respondent no. 5 approached the respondent-Ancha Adhikari for fixation of rent in respect of lands so purchased by him by registered sale deed. This gave rise to rent fixation Case No. 01/2003-04. Notices were issued to the writ petitioners and others, whereafter petitioner appeared in the said proceeding. It further appears that local inspection of the lands in dispute was got conducted by the Anchal Amin, whereafter report was submitted. These Anchal Adhikari also made local inspection of the land, whereafter the State authority came to the conclusion that the applicant had title and possession in respect of the lands claimed by him except 1 dhur of land. It was found to be illegally encroached. Accordingly, the said application was allowed in respect of only 11 dhurs. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred revision appeal before the respondent-Collector which was considered and disposed of in the manner noted hereinabove. From the materials on record, particularly Annexure-6, it appears that a proceeding under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code was initiated at the instance of respondent no. 5 wherein the writ petitioners also appeared. On consideration of the materials brought on record the Sub Divisional Magistrate dropped the aforesaid proceeding by order dated 10.11.2005, after holding that there was a serious dispute of title 4 between the parties. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5, wherein it has been stated that a title suit no. 188 of 2005 has already been filed by the respondent no. 5 against the writ petitioner for declaration of title and removal of illegal possession of the defendant (writ petitioner) over the suit property. Having considered the submissions, advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the material on record, this Court is satisfied that no interference with the impugned order can be made by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. There appears to be a dispute with regard to title between the parties. It appears that respondent no. 5 has already approached the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Petitioner if, so advised may take recourse to adjudication of his claim by invoking jurisdiction of the competent civil Court. This application is disposed of. Safik (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)