IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.983 of 2001 ABDUL KADIR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.984 of 2001 SURAJ SAHANI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.990 of 2001 MD. ALAY HASSAN TARA & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.826 of 2002 MD.AZAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- MJC No. 4077 of 1999 PITAMBER ACHARYA Versus SRI RAM KRISHNA MAHTO & ORS. ------------ 6. 20.1.2009 Heard Md. Nadim Seraj, counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State as also Mr. Durganand Jha, appearing on behalf of the interveners. The prayer in all these writ applications is against a notice, whereby and whereunder the petitioners were called upon to vacate the land of plot no. 1018 in village Afzala within Biraul Anchal. Counsel for the petitioners in order to stress emphasis on their case had relied on an 2 order of the Addl. Collector dated 4.5.1991, whereby and whereunder a review application filed by Ali Akbar Ansari was allowed and the earlier order passed by the Addl. Collector dated 7.2.1991 alongwith an order dated 16.5.1988 filed by the D.C.L.R. as with regard to cancellation of Jamabandi were set aside. Counsel for the petitioners, however, on being asked as to under which provision of law the Addl. Collector could have passed an order for review frankly admitted that there was no such power of review vested in the Addl. Collector. That being so, the petitioners cannot derive any right on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 4.5.1999 passed by the Addl. Collector. From a reading of the order dated 4.5.1999 it would transpire that the dispute with regard to the alleged encroachment hinges upon the issue as to whether the land in question is a Gair Majarua Aam land and is covered by the public road or is a private raiyati land of the petitioners or their vendors. Such complicated question of 3 title and possession of the land cannot be gone into even by the revenue authority much less by this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Obviously creation of Jamabandi will not give any right and title to the petitioner and therefore, if they are really so sure of their title, the only way for them is to file civil suit before the court of appropriate jurisdiction seeking declaration of their right, title and possession from the competent civil court. In this background Mr. Seraj, learned counsel for the petitioners, would seek leave of this Court to withdraw all these writ applications with a liberty to move the civil court by filing a suit. Such leave is accorded and all the writ applications are permitted to be withdrawn and in the event the petitioners file their civil suit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and till the period of filing of such suit i.e. eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, the status quo as 4 existing today in respect of the land in question shall be maintained but thereafter if the petitioners have any further apprehension of their being dispossessed and/or removed from the land in question or being disturbed their possession in any manner, they will have to approach the civil court for injunction. So far the grievance of the petitioner Pitambar Acharya in the contempt application of M.J.C.No. 4077/1999 is concerned, this Court would only take note of the fact that a direction was given by this Court on 1.12.1998 in C.W.J.C. No. 4839/98 giving liberty to Pitambar Acharya to move the Collector for removal of encroachment. The Collector of the District in terms of the order of this Court had directed for removal of encroachment vide order dated 4.9.2000 (Annexure ‘D’ to the show cause) and yet such encroachment could not be removed because there was an interim order passed by this Court in the aforementioned four writ applications. Today when four writ applications have been disposed of, the Collector of Darbhanga 5 district is directed to ensure that in the event there is no order of injunction in the suits to be filed by the petitioners on expiry of a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such suit, he must ensure that his order dated 4.9.2000 as with regard to removal of encroachment is religiously and punctually complied. All the applications are, accordingly, disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/