Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

2. The subject matter of the instant case are six plots appertaining to Khata no.474, Plot no.113 measuring an area of 0.14 decimal; Khata no.474, Plot no.1995 measuring an area of 0.94 decimal; Khata no.234, Plot no.2881 measuring an area of 0.95 decimal; Khata no.18 Plot no.2617 measuring an area of 0.11 decimal; Khata no.65 Plot no.2486 measuring an area of 0.15.5 decimal and Khata no.221 Plot no.2642 measuring an area of 0.03 decials, all in Mauza Govindpur Sadaweh under Police Station Dulhin Bazar in the District of Patna.

3. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that he is the absolute owner of the above lands in question as a result of purchase of three of the plots by registered sale deed by his ancestors and the other three plots through deed of exchange obtained by his father, the sale deed and the deed of exchange having been brought on record as annexures to the writ application.

4. It is submitted that Jamabandi was created in the name of his father and he has been paying rent and getting rent receipt. Rent receipt for the year 1996-97 has been brought on record.

5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the lands in question were in peaceful possession of his ancestors since the year 1921 and of the writ petitioner since 1978. The private respondents (appellants herein) who do not have a good character dispossessed the writ petitioner from the land for which the writ petitioner filed a petition on 25.6.2023 before the Circle Officer and notices were issued. The parties were directed to produce relevant documents in support of their claim, however subsequently, the Circle Officer dropped the proceedings. Against the same, the writ petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Paliganj vide LD Case no.70 of 2022-23 wherein the writ respondents filed their written statement. The case was dropped by the learned DCLR with an advice to the writ petitioner to move before the competent Civil Court for the reason that complicated questions of title arose between the parties which can only be decided by the competent Civil Court.

6. It was the case of the writ petitioner that the learned DCLR has the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute but he dropped the proceeding and as such the order was bad in law. CWJC no.14667 of 2022 was filed praying for quashing the order dated 9.9.2022 passed in Land Dispute Case no. 70 of 2022-23 by the learned DCLR, Paliganj, Patna. The application was opposed by learned counsel for the writ respondent. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by order dated 23.11.2022 was pleased to dispose of CWJC no.14667 of 2022 against which the instant appeal has been preferred.

7. The learned counsel for the writ respondents-appellants has submitted that complicated questions of title arising in the instant application, the DCLR, Paliganj by his order dated 9.9.2022 rightly dropped the proceedings initiated under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 giving liberty to the writ petitioner to move in Title Suit. There was no illegality in the order of the learned DCLR. The writ respondents (appellants) were already in possession of the land and the order of the learned Single Judge giving a finding on the possession of the writ petitioner (respondent no.6) with respect to the land in question has caused serious prejudice to the appellant and thus the instant appeal.

8. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in deciding the question of possession in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the matter should have been left to be decided in the title suit. In support of his contention reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others [(2019) 2 SCC 329 : 2019 (1) BLJ 183 (SC)].

9. Having heard learned counsel for the