Writ for restoration of possession cannot be maintained when a title suit concerning the same property is pending.

The petitioners are the legal heirs of Sk. Sabir @ Shabbir, a landless person who was issued a Bhoodan Parcha in 1955 for 15 kattha of land in Darbhanga

Following their father's death, the petitioners alleged they were dispossessed by private respondents. They filed a dispossession case (No. 09/2017-18) under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. The DCLR, Birol, ruled in their favor on 11.07.2018, directing measurement and restoration of possession

Despite a subsequent order by the Additional Collector on 28.01.2019 confirming their title and directing police assistance for restoration, possession was not restored. The State contended that restoration was stalled due to a pending title suit (Title Suit No. 59 of 2018) involving the same land

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its mandamus jurisdiction to restore possession to the petitioners while a civil title suit regarding the same property is pending before a subordinate court.

2. Whether the claims of a third party (plaintiff in the Title Suit) regarding an alleged land exchange with the petitioners' father necessitate adjudication by a Civil Court rather than a writ court.

The Court considered Section 4(1)(b) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009, regarding the resolution of disputes over settled Bhoodan land

It primarily applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate forum to resolve complex questions of title or to intervene when a competent Civil Court is already "in seisin" (legally seized) of the matter

The court underscored the principle of avoiding multiplicity of litigation and the necessity of determining disputed questions of fact—such as the validity of an alleged land exchange—through a civil suit rather than summary writ proceedings

The Court observed that while the Bhoodan Yag Committee supported the petitioners' original title, the emergence of Title Suit No. 59 of 2018 (filed by one Md. Atikur Rahman) complicated the matter. The plaintiff in that suit claimed the land had been exchanged by the petitioners' father

The Court reasoned that since the description of the land in the suit was identical to the petitioners' claim, any order for restoration of possession by the High Court would create "multiplicity of litigation" and "anomaly"

The Court determined that the validity of the alleged transfer/exchange is a question of title that can only be decided in a civil suit where evidence can be weighed, rather than through a mandamus for possession

The writ application was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Sub-judge, Biraul, to be impleaded as party defendants in the pending suit to protect their interests and claim possession. No specific relief was granted regarding the immediate enforcement of the Additional Collector’s order