Sandeep Kumar, J.—The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, in Miscellaneous (Raiyatikaran) Case No.03 of 2018.

2. The facts of this case are that the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (for short “BICICO”) issued sale notice dated 16.06.2011 and invited all the interested persons/firms/companies for purchasing the assets of the companies including the assets of M/S Kiran Re-Rollers Private Limited on the ground that the promoters/directors of the companies have defaulted in repayment of their loans. While quoting the minimum reserved price of the property, in question, it has specifically been mentioned that the land is free hold land. In pursuance of the aforesaid sale notice dated 16.06.2011, the petitioner submitted his bid to purchase the assets of M/s Kiran Re-Rollers Private Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as “Company”). The offer of the petitioner to purchase the assets of the Company was Rs.3,31,51,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner paid the entire amount as per the terms and conditions of the sale notice. However, the Company challenged the action of the BICICO in taking over the assets of the company by way of filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.9994 of 2011 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 30.06.2011 dismissed the said writ petition. Against the order dated 30.06.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9994 of 2011, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 1244 of 2011, which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2012.

3. In the year 2015, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No.2930 of 2015 seeking a direction to the BICICO to execute and register the sale deed of the assets of the Company, which has been bought by him in auction sale. This Court vide order dated 10.01.2017 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the BICICO to execute and register the sale deed for the premises in question within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In light of the order dated 10.01.2017, deed of sale was executed between the petitioner and the BICICO. In page no.11 of the sale deed, it has been mentioned that “in case the vendee shall be deprived of the possession of the said property or part thereof by virtue of any act of the vendor or by his heirs or by any persons claiming the title thereto, the vendor and his estate shall be bound to compensate the vendee for such loss or damages arising out from such act and shall be liable to refund the compensation amount with cost and interest from the date of accrual of such loss”. After the sale deed, the petitioner moved for mutation entry in respect of the land in question before the Circle Officer, Silao, who mutated only 0.18 acres of land in favour of the petitioner out of 1.41 acres of land, as according to the Circle Officer, out of total 1.41 acres of land, 1.23 acres of land is “Gairmajarua Malik” land. Against the order of the Circle Officer, the petitioner moved before the District Magistrate, Nalanda with regard to mutation of remaining land. However, the District Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 26.09.2018 rejected the claim of the petitioner and affirmed the order of the Circle Officer. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders declaring 1.23 acres of land as “Gairmajarua Malik” is illegal as the Company had obtained the entire land i.e. 1.41 acres of land vide seven registered sale deeds which have been executed by seven individuals and subsequently, in order to avail the loan from BICICO, the Company had executed the loan agreement with BICICO and BICICO had sanctioned a term loan of Rs.90,00,000/- in favour of the Company. Thereafter, the Company availed the said loan by submitted the said registered sale deeds and other documents. He further submits that the Company did not repay the loan amount from the very beginning and in this regard notices