Disputed title and possession claims belong before the competent civil court.

The appellants claimed rights in land at Mauza Basauna through a 1945 sale deed in favour of their ancestors, said to derive from an earlier settlement by the ex-landlord.

They relied on rent-reduction proceedings, a claimed jamabandi, and payment of rent.

The State disputed the alleged settlement and the appellants’ title and possession, asserting that the land was fallow and in the possession of the Bihar Government.

The appellants’ writ petition sought to quash the State’s decision to fund construction of a minority residential school on the land and to restrain interference with their claimed rights.

The Single Judge directed them to seek relief before a competent civil court, including interim relief, if appropriate.

The appellants challenged that order in this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the appellants’ claims of right, title, and possession, disputed by the State, could appropriately be adjudicated in writ proceedings or required determination by a competent civil court

2. Whether the Single Judge’s decision to relegate the appellants to the civil court disclosed an error warranting interference in the Letters Patent Appeal

Disputed questions of right, title, and possession that require examination of evidence are appropriately determined by a competent civil court rather than in writ proceedings.

In an intra-court appeal, although the appellate power is not identical to the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Division Bench ordinarily should not differ from a finding of fact by the Single Judge without cogent reasons; the appellate court should exercise restraint (Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan, (2005) 6 SCC 243, para. 52, quoted at para. 9, pp. 9–10).

The Court treated the central dispute as one concerning the appellants’ title and possession, with the parties advancing competing accounts of the land’s settlement, revenue records, and possession.

Because resolving those claims would require assessment of evidence, the civil court was the appropriate forum.

The Single Judge had already left the appellants free to pursue that remedy, and the Division Bench found no cogent reason or error warranting appellate interference.

It clarified that the appellants could first make a representation to the competent authority, which should pass a reasoned order expeditiously and in accordance with law; if still aggrieved, they could approach the competent civil court.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.