Pending civil suit does not bar administrative consideration of grievances regarding eviction from settled land.

The four petitioners, claiming to be landless "Parchadharis," assert they were granted possession of 25 decimals of land in Village-Kauriram (Khata No. 48, Khesra No. 243) via Parchas issued in 1988.

They allege they have regularly paid rent and maintained possession until they were forcibly dispossessed by the District Administration for the construction of a government building.

The petitioners filed Title Suit No. 899 of 2023, which is currently pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohania.

Additionally, they submitted a representation to the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Kaimur, on January 13, 2026, which remained undecided, prompting this writ petition.

1. Whether the pendency of a Title Suit in a civil court bars the petitioners from seeking an administrative remedy through a writ for the disposal of their representation.

2. Whether the District Magistrate is obligated to redress grievances regarding alleged administrative atrocities even while judicial proceedings regarding title are sub-judice.

The court applied the principle of "different and distinct" remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It distinguished between judicial remedies—where a Civil Court determines legal title and the validity of Parcha cancellations—and administrative remedies, where a District Collector is responsible for addressing grievances regarding executive actions or local authorities' "atrocities".

The court rejected the State's contention that the pending Title Suit precluded writ jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that the two remedies seek different ends: the civil suit is a judicial inquiry into the legal right to land and the validity of eviction, whereas the representation to the Collector is an administrative plea to address the immediate grievances of homeless individuals against local authorities.

The Court noted that the Collector’s failure to act on the representation dated January 13, 2026, forced the petitioners into the writ jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Court found it necessary to compel the executive to perform its administrative duty regardless of the ongoing title litigation.

It directed the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Kaimur (Respondent No. 2), to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated January 13, 2026, in accordance with the law within four weeks of receiving the order.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.