IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19672 of 2011 1. Surendra Kumar S/O Late Jageshwar Ram Resident Of Krishna Priya Kerosence Agency At P.O. And P.S. Ekangarsarai, District-Nalanda. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Nalanda At Biharsharif. 4. Additional Collector, Nalanda At Bihar Sharif. 5. Sub Divisional Officer, At Hilsa, District-Nalanda. 6. Circle Officer, Ekangar Sarai, District-Nalanda. 2 15.11.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4.11.2011 contained in memo no.1785 issued by the Circle Officer, Ekangar Sarai. The petitioner purchased part land in Chak No.1410/1948 under Khata No.111 by registered sale deed dated 1.8.1984 and thereafter again purchased land in Chak No.1410/1948 under Khata No.111 by a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1981. The petitioner also purchased 4 ¾ decimals of land in the Chak No.1410/1948 under Khata No.111 by registered sale deed dated 22.7.1982. Thus the total area of the lands purchased by the petitioner would come to 16-17 decimals of land. The name of the petitioner was subsequently mutated in respect of the land in question. The petitioner submits that earlier the land encroachment proceeding bearing 7/2006-07 was initiated which was subsequently dropped with the conclusion that there was no encroachment. The proceeding 2 KHAN was again reopened and was subsequently dropped. The petitioner submits that in order to buy peace, he even removed his boundary wall though the same was in his raiyati land. The petitioner further submits that the D.C.L.R. in his order dated 13.5.2011 too observed that there was no encroachment. However, he observed that the map be accordingly moulded. Against the order of the D.C.L.R., the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Appeal No.74/2011 before the learned Commissioner, Patna Division. The petitioner submits that earlier he had moved this court in writ jurisdiction in which also no adverse finding was recorded against him. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner should have filed an application for stay in the appeal itself pending before the learned Commissioner, Patna Division. As the order of the D.C.L.R. also relates to the same dispute, I am of the view that the petitioner, if so advised, may move an application before the learned Commissioner for stay of removal of the encroachment. In case any such application is filed, the same would be disposed of expeditiously. In the meantime, status quo, as existing today, shall be maintained for eight weeks in order to enable the petitioner to file necessary application before the learned Commissioner in Appeal No.74/2011. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J) 3