1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The prayer in this writ application by the writ petitioner as mentioned in paragraphs no. 1, 2, 3 reads as follows:-

1. That this application is being filed for a direction by this Hon ble Court for issuance of any appropriate writ to the District Board, Bettiah to restrain/ cancel the settlement of the Flank of the Road situated at Majhaulia Town/Blook, Bettiah, West Champaran.

2. That this Hon ble Court may also quash the Memo No. 263 dated 1.12.2000 by which the respondents Nos. 4 to 8 have settled land existing on the flank of the Road.

3. That it is further prayed that your Lordships may stay the construction of the shops by Respondent No.4 to 8 which are being constructed without any agreement.

3. Counsel for the petitioner at the outset had submitted that the writ petitioner has no longer any interest in the writ application inasmuch as he had already sold his plot of land.

4. Counsel for the petitioner, however submits that one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 223 of 2007 has been filed by the two purchasers who according to him have come into the shoes of the writ petitioner and therefore, they may be substituted and transposed as writ petitioners.

5. In the opinion of this Court, such a prayer is wholly misconceived because an order dated 13.12.2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 13004/2000 was passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner considering only the case of the petitioner which reads as follows:-

"The petitioner has challenged the settlement made by Respondent No.3 in favour of respondents no.4 to 8. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that settled portion is flank of the road. It is 12 ft. wide out of which 10 ft. wide has been settled for construction of shop. If settlement is allowed to stand and construction is made it will cause difficulty to the petitioner is coming out and going to the house. Such matter can be looked into and grievance can be redressed by the local authority because it relates to factual aspect of the matter. Therefore, this application is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a petition before the respondent no.3 within one week. In case such petition is filed, the respondent no.3 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and also that in no way the petitioner may be put to any trouble in using the residential house. He is also directed to disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the petition."

6. Such personal right which had accrued on the writ petitioner, cannot be acquired by the purchasers. As a matter of fact, the impugned order also came to be passed at the instance of the writ petitioner who was given liberty by this Court to file a representation and it was his representation which got disposed of by the impugned order. That being so, this Court would reject the prayer for impleadment of the interveners for being substituted in place of writ petitioner and being transposed as a writ petitioners.

Specially when such sale deeds in their farm was executed by the writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ application on 14.9.2004 and 26.7.2005 and that too without obtaining prior permission of this court. The doctrine of Its pendens would squarely govern the fate of the purchasers who even otherwise cannot be impleaded as petitioners in terms of Chapter XXIC of Patna High Court Rules.

7. Though, the petitioner has already sold his land and therefore has no interest left in this lis involved in this writ application, this Court would find that even otherwise, he had in fact no case for invoking the writ jurisdiction. That is because this Court would find that the case of the petitioner was that the flank of the road was being encroached/settled by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer by raising construction of shops and settling it