IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5222 of 2009 Samitullah Khan, Son of Late Bismallah Khan, Resident of village- Suratganj, P.S.Rahika, District Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Land Reform and Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Land Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 5. The Collector, Madhubani, District Madhubani 6. The Addl. Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani, District Madhubani 7. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani, District Madhubani 8. The Circle Officer, Rahika (Madhubani), District Madhubani with CWJC No.6109 of 2009 Shambhu Purvey, son of Late Mahabir Purbey, Resident of village Suratganj, P.S. Rahika, District Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Land Reform and Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Land Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 5. The Collector, Madhubani, District Madhubani 6. The Addl. Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani, District Madhubani 7. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani, District Madhubani 8. The Circle Officer, Rahika (Madhubani), District Madhubani with CWJC No.6525 of 2009 Md.Habib, son of Late Kasim Ali, Resident of village Suratganj, P.S. Rahika, District Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Land Reform and Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Land Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 5. The Collector, Madhubani, District Madhubani 6. The Addl. Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani, District Madhubani 7. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani, District Madhubani 8. The Circle Officer, Rahika (Madhubani), District Madhubani ----------- 04/ 22.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State as also the counsel for the Intervenor, Sri Manoj Kumar Safi. 2 2. Petitioner in the three writ applications is aggrieved by the notice dated 16.3.2009 issued in connection with Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 2 of 2008-09 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why Jamabandi created in their favour for plot nos. 3117 and 3118 be not cancelled in the light of the request of the Circle Officer, Rahika. In response to the aforesaid notice, petitioners have filed their show cause reply, but as interim orders have been passed in these matters, show cause reply have not been considered and disposed of. 3. Counsel for the Intervenor, however, pointed out that under orders dated 30.12.2009, passed in Encroachment Case Nos. 7 of 2006-07 and 73 of 2006-07, Jamabandi of the three petitioners in regard to plot nos. 3117 and 3118 has already been cancelled and the said order has been appended as Annexure-9 to C.W.J.C. No. 15712 of 2009, but for the reasons best known to the petitioners, aforesaid order dated 30.12.2009 has not yet been challenged in the said writ case. 4. Counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder, submitted that the Jamabandi of the petitioners in regard to plot nos. 3117 and 3118 could not have been cancelled in an Encroachment proceeding as for cancelling the same Jamabandi Case No. 2 of 2008-09 has been initiated. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioners, State and the Intervenor, I dispose of these writ applications with direction to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani, 3 Madhubani to consider the show cause reply filed by the petitioners in response to the notice dated 16.3.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Until disposal of the said show cause reply, status quo, as existing today, be maintained on the lands in question. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)