IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12585 of 2002 MOUSHAMI BOSE, Wife of Sri Sudeep Kumar Bose, Resident of Mohalla Nilkothi, Ward No. 12 of the Dehri- Dalmianagar Municipality, Police Station and Post Office- Dehri-On-Sone, District- Rohtas, Bihar. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE SUB-DIVISIONALOFFICER, DEHRI-ON-SONE, District- Rohtas. 2. Vinay Kumar, Son of Ram Nagina Prasad, r/o Mohalla Nilkothi, Ward No.12 of the Dehri- Dalmianagar Municipality, Police Station and Post Office- Dehri-On-Sone, District- Rohtas, Bihar. 3. The Dehri- Dalmianagar Municipality, Dehri-On-Sone, District- Rohtas, through the Municipal Commissioner. 4. Sri Sudeep Kumar Bose, Son of Sri Sheetal Roy, Resident of Mohalla Nilkothi, Ward No.12 of the Dehri- Dalmianagar Municipality, Police Station and Post Office- Dehri-On-Sone, District- Rohtas, Bihar. . . . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate, : Mrs. Ratna Das, Advocate For Resp. No.2 : Mr. D. Surendra, Advocate For Resp. No.4 : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the State : AC to AAG III ----------- 5/ 22.02.2010 Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 02.02.2002 passed BY Sub-Divisional Officer, Dehri –On- Sone, District –Rohtas in Case no. 83 (M) of 2002. Learned counsel submits that petitioner, Moushami Bose, is the owner of the plot, whereas notice was issued to her husband in Land Encroachment proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid fact would also appear from the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-3/A to the writ application. I would have ordinarily asked the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order under Land Encroachment Act but in paragraph 2 at page 4 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the matter may be remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer in the ends - 2 - of justice. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, the matter is remitted to respondent no.1, Sub-Divisional Officer, Dehri-On-Sone, District- Rohtas for further proceeding in the case after giving due notice to the petitioner. In the mean time, parties will observe status quo in respect of disputed premises. This Court further observes that as the proceeding is an old one, the same should be concluded preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties would be at liberty to produce any additional documents or evidence during the aforesaid time framed. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)