Alok Kumar Pandey, J.—In the instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief (s):—

“I. For setting aside the order dated 7.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Member (Administration) the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in B.LT. Case no. 480/2017 whereby and where under the B.L.T. case no. 480/2017 was said to not maintainable in this tribunal in the light of perused order of Hon'ble apex court in Civil Appeal no. 4726 and 4729- 4739/2017.

II. For getting aside the order dated 16.3.2017 passed by the Division Commissioner, Darbhanga in Land Dispute appeal no. 64 of 2013 affirming the order of the ld. D.C.L.R. Darbhanga dated 19.1.2013 in B.L.D.R. case no. 459/12-13 on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary party which is an error of record.

III. For further setting aside the order dated 19.1.2013 passed by the Id. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Darbhanga in B.L.D.R. case no. 459/12-13 whereby and where under the Circle Officer Baheri has been directed to remove the encroachment from 6 decimal of land of Khata no. 708(old), Khesra no. 1130(old), new Khesra no. 1776.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that respondent nos. 6 & 7 filed Case No. 459/12-13 before the DCLR, Sadar, Darbhanga for removal of encroachment from the land in question. The DCLR vide order dated 19.01.2013 allowed the case and directed the C.O. to remove the encroachment. Against the said order of removal of encroachment, present petitioners filed Land Dispute Appeal Case No. 64 of 2013 before the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga, which was dismissed by order dated 16.03.2017 on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary parties. Thereafter, petitioners filed B.L.T. Case No. 480 of 2017 before the Bihar Land Tribunal, which was rejected by the order dated 07.12.2017 by observing that with regard to provision of Sub section (5) of Section 4 of the B.L.D..R. Act it was held that where issues relating to title arise the same would have to be mandatory closed leaving the same open to the parties to seek remedies before the competent Civil Court. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, petitioners have approached this Court by way of wiling the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1 acre 48 decimal land of khata no. 708(old), 480(new), plot no. 1130(old) 1776 and 1777(New) of Mauza Samadpur Anchal Baheri, District Darbhanga is the subject matter of this case. Nature of the land in question is Pokhar and is recorded as “Gair Mazarua Aam” in C.S, Khatiyan and in R.S.,Khatiyan it is recorded as “Anabad Sarva Sadharan”. Learned counsel submits that while deciding the appeal of the petitioners, the Commissioner has passed the order that the appeal is dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary party as the State of Bihar has not been made party, but the petition of Land Dispute Appeal No. 64 of 2013, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition, indicates that State of Bihar is added as one of the respondents i.e. respondent no.1.

4. By order dated 13.02.2023 notice was directed to be issued to respondent nos. 6 and 7 and it was further directed that during pendency of the application, status quo shall be maintained. Thereafter, respondent nos. 6 & 7 appeared and filed I.A. No. 01 of 2024 complaining that the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2023 is being misused by the petitioners inasmuch as the dispute is with regard to 6 dhurs of land but in the garb of the status quo order, they are disturbing the respondent nos. 6 & 7 with regard to the entire pond which is more than 1 bigha.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 6 & 7, though the counter affidavit, has submitted that in para 7 it is stated that statement made by the petitioners in para 4 of the writ petition that land of khata no. 708(old), 480(new), plot no. 1130(old) 1776 and 1777(New) of Mauza Samadpur Anchal Baheri is recorded as Gair Mazarua Aam Land in C.S. Khatiyan and in R.S. is not true. In para 8 of the counter