IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1860 of 2010 1. GENA CHOUDHARY S/O LATE SHITAL CHOUDHARY R/O VILL- SENARA, P.S. SHIKARPUR, P.O., DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR WEST CHAMPARAN,BETTIAH. 2. LAND REFORMS, DEPUTY COLLECTOR, NARKATIYAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN 3. BALDEO TIWARI S/O LATE PANDIT BHAGAWAT TIWARI R/O VILL- SUGAULI, TOLA- BIRTI, P.O. SUGAULI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, ANCHAL-NARKATIYAGANJ, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 4. MANI KANT TIWARI S/O LATE PANDIT DHRUB TIWARI R/O VILL- SUGAULI, TOLA- BIRTI, P.O. SUGAULI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, ANCHAL-NARKATIYAGANJ, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 5. ANIL TIWARI S/O LATE PANDIT VYAS TIWARI R/O VILL- SUGAULI, TOLA- BIRTI, P.O. SUGAULI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, ANCHAL-NARKATIYAGANJ, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 6. DRAUPADI DEVI W/O RAM PRASAD MUKHIYA @ BANDHU MUKHIYA R/O VILL- LAUKARIYA, P.O. SHIKARPUR, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 7. SHASHI DEVI W/O SURESH DUEIVEDI R/O VILL- LAUKARIYA, P.S. SHIKARPUR, P.O. ...................., DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 8. RANJU DEVI W/O MIRTUNJAY DWIVEDI R/O VILL- LAUKARIYA, P.S. SHIKARPUR, P.O. ...................., DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 9. SAMRAJI DEVI @ MARACHHO DEVI D/O LATE GANGA TIWARI, W/O BAIDYANATH TIWARI R/O VILL- SUGAULI, TOLA- BIRTI, P.O. SUGAULI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 10. GUDDU CHOUDHARY S/O GENA CHOUDHARY R/O VILL- LAUKARIYA, P.O. ANJUWA SUGAULI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2. 04.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner-purchaser is aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Narkatiyaganj in Mutation Appeal No. 33/2005-06, Annexure-2 which has also been affirmed in revision by the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah vide order dated 30.10.2009 in Revenue Misc. Case No. 135/2006-07, Annexure-1. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the appellate order dated 3.11.2006, Annexure-2 was passed by the appellate court without condoning the delay in filing the appeal and for failure to consider the limitation matter the order is bad. Revisional order dated 30.10.2009, Annexure-1 is also bad as the revisional court also did not notice the aforesaid point. In this connection it is further pointed out that the petitioner acquired - 2 - the lands in-question through a sale-deed and for declaration of his title over those lands he has filed Title Suit No. 225 of 2005 which is pending in the court of Subordinate Judge-I, Bettiah. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that instead of proceeding to consider the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid two orders, it is desirable to observe that the findings recorded in the two orders dated 3.11.2006 and 30.10.2009, Annexures- 2 and 1 shall be subject to the result of the aforesaid title suit. In the event the possession of the petitioner over the lands in-question is disturbed during the pendency of the aforesaid title suit, it shall be open for the petitioners to approach the Subordinate Judge requesting him to consider his prayer for grant of injunction. 5. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)