IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12971 of 2009 HARE KANT ROY, son of Late Jagdish Roy, resident of village- Shankar Rohar Bithouli, P.S. Baheri, District- Darbhanga. . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Darbhanga 3. The Additional Collector Land Reforms, Darbhanga 4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Darbhanga 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Darbhanga 6. The Circle Officer, Baheri, District Darbhanga 7. Station House Officer, Police station- Baheri, Darbhanga 8. Nepal Paswan, 9. Ram Sugarath Paswan 10. Kari Paswan, Respondent nos. 8 - 10 sons of late Bhabbi Paswan 11. Ritu Paswan, s/o Laldhari Paswan, 12. Ram Pukar Paswan s/o Ritu Paswan Respondent nos. 8 - 12 residents of village & P.O. Shankar Rohar Bithouli, P.S. Baheri, District- Darbhanga. . . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 06.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by letter no. 875 dated 12.12.2008 and letter no. 31 dated 06.09.2009 issued by respondent no.6 directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of 18 decimals of land of khata nos. 259, 264 and 280 khesra nos. 2272, 2273 and 2274 to respondent nos. 8 to 12 on the basis of Basgit Parcha issued to them. The petitioner states that recently he came to learn that Basgit Parcha was issued to the respondent nos. 8 to 12 in the year 1993-94. He submits that Basgit Parcha was issued without following the procedure under the law. No notice was given to him. The petitioner further submits that he came to learn about the aforesaid Basgit Parcha recently when he received notice for handing over the possession of the aforesaid land to the respondents. Petitioner further submits that he has stated in paragraph 10 of this application that he - 2 - has moved before the Collector, Darbhanga (respondent no.2) on 19.02.2009 against the order dated 12.12.2008 of respondent no.6. The cases have been registered as Misc. Case nos. 100 of 2009, 101 of 2009, 102 of 2009, 103 of 2009 and 104 of 2009. The petitioner states that apart from not providing notice to him they have not complied Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that petitioner should pursue his remedy in filing cases before Collector, Darbhanga as mentioned in paragraph 10 of this application. In the mean time status quo as existing today will prevail for a period of four weeks to enable the learned counsel to pursue his remedy before Collector, Darbhanga. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)