Judgment Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. In the town of Sasaram across the road and infront of the tomb of the famous Afghan king Shershah is located a school known as Bal Vikas Vidyalaya-petitioner No.1 run by a Society registered under the societies Registration act. Petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director and the petitioner No.3 the Principal of the school. The respondents include certain government officials, who inspite of an order of a competent Court for maintenance of status quo in a suit in between the parties raided the school on the morning of 8th February 1996, demolished the boundary wall and ransacked the school building. The petitioners are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court and seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Respondents particularly respondent No.5, the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, respondent No.6, D. D. C. Rohtas, respondent No.8, Superintendent of police, Rohtas at Sasaram, and respondent No.7, Sub-divisional Officer, sasaram, be directed by appropriate writ, order or direction to immediately restore all the article, goods and documents etc. which they have seized and also thrown away on account of their illegal raid on the school on 8-2-1996. (ii) Immediately remove all the locks and seal they have placed on the school building, class rooms etc. at Bal Vikas vidyalaya situated in ward No.22, Mohalla company Sarai in Sasaram town in the district of Rohtas. (iii) Direct the said respondents to immediately return the vehicles and all documents etc. which they have illegally removed and confiscated on 8-2-96. (iv) Direct the said respondents to immediately reconstruct the boundary wall from their own fund which was arbitrarily and illegally demolished by them. (v) Render all the co-operation to the petitioners to start the teaching and other activities in the school. (vi) Restrain the respondents from interfering in the management and running of the school. (vii) Any other appropriate order or directions which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including heavy costs against the respondents. 2. The school sponsored by the lions Club was tarted on 14th January 1976. It was located in a building of the officers club opposite Shershah tomb with the permission of the Collector. The school claims to have purchased 1 bigha, 1 Katha, 9 Dhurs of land appertaining to municipal survey plot Nos.38,39 and 40 corresponding to plot No.1 of C. S. Khata No.12. It was located in a building of the officers club opposite Shershah tomb with the permission of the Collector. The school claims to have purchased 1 bigha, 1 Katha, 9 Dhurs of land appertaining to municipal survey plot Nos.38,39 and 40 corresponding to plot No.1 of C. S. Khata No.12. The purchase was made by sale deed dated 26-2-81. The land was being used by the school as play ground and the club building and the adjoining land given by the Collector in 1975 was being used as school building. C. S. plot No.1 from which municipal survey plot Nos.38,39 and 40 had been carved out measured more than 8 acres. The Archaeological Survey of India started claiming title and right- over the lands and the club building in which the school was running. The interference became so much pronounced that the petitioners filed TS. No.164/82 in the Court of Subordinate Judge-1, sasaram, challenging such interference and for a declaration that the Archaeological Survey of India had no title, claim or right over the disputed land. The Union of India, the Director general of Archaeological Survey of india and the State of Bihar through the Collector were parties to the suit. On an application filed by the plaintiffs the learned Subordinate Judge by an order dated 21-10-82 directed the parties to maintain status quo on the suit land including the building till the disposal of the suit. The defendants-Union of India and others being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed Miscellaneous appeal No.52/26 of 1982-86 and the learned Additional District and Sessions judge by order dated 13-8-87 (An-nexure-2) dismissed the appeal. Since the said order was not challenged before the High Court it had attained finality. However, on account of non-cooperative attitude of the Archaeological Survey of India the suit has not been disposed of uptill now. After the aforesaid order for maintenance of status quo the school management erected a boundary wall for the safety and security of the students in view of the worsening law and order situation in the town. A land encroachment proceeding videland encroachment case no.26 of 1983-84 was initiated by the deputy Collector Land Reforms which was decided against the school authorities in a hurry. On appeal the collector remanded the matter for fresh hearing in accordance with law. A land encroachment proceeding videland encroachment case no.26 of 1983-84 was initiated by the deputy Collector Land Reforms which was decided against the school authorities in a hurry. On appeal the collector remanded the matter for fresh hearing in accordance with law. Despite repeated requests made by the school authorities to the D. C. L. R. to deliver the judgment, no order was passed nor any date the intimated or notified on which date judgment would be given. That all of a sudden on 8-2-96 at 7.30 in the morning the respondents-officials namely the District Development officer (respondent No.6), the Sub-divisional Officer (respondent No.7), the Deputy Superintendent of Police (respondent No.9) and the officer-in-charge of Sasaram town police station came to the school along with fifty armed police men and fifty labourers. The police party resorted to firing in air to scare the people and thereafter under the orders of the officers present the entire boundary, wall was demolished and the school building was completely ransacked. The goods materials, documents and blackboards were all thrown out and they put their seal on each room of the school and also seized the Trekker vehicle parked there. The petitioners thereafter filed a petition in the title suit for appointing of a Pleader Commissioner. The Court allowed the prayer by order dated 9-2-96 (Annexure-4)despite the opposition by the State officials and appointed a Pleader Commissioner to prepare the inventory. The district officials did not allow the pleader Commissioner to go on the spot to prepare the inventory and instead filed an application before the trial Court that they would move the high Court against the said order. It is not in dispute that Civil Revision No.448 of 19% against the said order has been filed and is pending in the High court. The petitioners apprehending that they may not gel proper relief at the district level as the district officials were themselves involved in the matter had moved this Court under the compelling circumstances mentioned above for the reliefs aforementioned in the interest of justice as also in the interest of 1300 students of the school. 3. The application has been contested by the respondents by filing two counter affidavits one sworn by the d. C. L. R. Sasaram, on being authorised by the Collector to do so and another on behalf of the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of Tndia (respondent No.10 ). 3. The application has been contested by the respondents by filing two counter affidavits one sworn by the d. C. L. R. Sasaram, on being authorised by the Collector to do so and another on behalf of the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of Tndia (respondent No.10 ). The respondents have denied the allegations contained in the writ application. They deny the title of the plaintiffs to the suit land. They also deny the petitioners case that they had violated Courts order regarding maintenance of status quo. It is contended that the encroachment were removed while implementing an order passed in a land encroachment proceeding against the school authorities from over the land which were not included in the suit land involved in the civil suit in between the parties. In other words the land from which encroachments had been removed was not the subject matter of the title suit between the parties. It is contended that in execution of the order passed in the encroachment proceeding the articles removed were kept in safe custody under orders of the court in the premises of the Archaeological Department. It is also claimed that the petitioners have already preferred an appeal before the collector of the district against the order passed under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment act. The contention is that the petitioners having preferred an appeal before the appellate authority could not invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court for similar reliefs. The petitioners in their rejoinder to the counter affidavit denied some of the statements made in the counter affidavit. They have relied upon some of the documents of the respondents as evidence to prove their acknowledgment that the school building was on the disputed land. In that connection they have referred to an application filed by the plaintiff before the learned sub-Judge in the title suit for permission to carry out necessary repairs of the school building and have also referred to a rejoinder filed by the Archaeological Survey of India stating that the said building in the suit i. e. the "school" needs no repairs. The petitioners have also referred to the fact that after the trial Court refused the permission they made a similar prayer vide Misc. case no.52/82 before the District Judge and the Addl. The petitioners have also referred to the fact that after the trial Court refused the permission they made a similar prayer vide Misc. case no.52/82 before the District Judge and the Addl. District Judge to whom the matter was transferred allowed the prayer vide order dated 11-6-84 (An-nexure-9 series ). 4. Sri Tara Kant Jha learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the district officials who were supposed to be the custodians of law and order had themselves acted in an illegal manner in demolishing the boundary wall and ransacking the school building. The argument is being advanced on the basis that irrespective of the rival claims of title to the disputed land, both parties were bound by the order of the Court to maintain status quo and the action of the district officials had violated the Courts order of status quo. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar and the Union of India have controverted the allegations on the ground that only the encroachments had been removed pursuant to an order passed by a competent court in the land encroachment proceeding after hearing the petitioners who were party to the proceeding and that the land from which the encroachments had been removed was not included in the subject matter of the title suit in between the parties. 5. A copy of the plaint of the Title suit No.164/82 has been filed as An-nexure-C to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State and as An-nexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.10. The details of the disputed land are mentioned in schedule-A of the plaint and read as follows:- Mohalla, Shershah Path, Rouza road, Sasaram, Ward No.22, police station No.126, Municipal survey plot nos.38, 39 and 40 corresponding to c. S. Khata No.12, plot No.1, area 1 bigha, 1 Katha and 9 Dhurs. Schedule-A also mentions the boundary as follows:-North - Nala south - Sarak, east - Road, west - Find, and Bal Vikas vidyalaya. This is the piece of land which the plaintiff No.2 in the title suit namely lions Club, Sasaram, claims to have purchased by deed of sale dated 26-2-81 on payment of a consideration of Rs.30.000/- and to have come in possession. This is the piece of land which the plaintiff No.2 in the title suit namely lions Club, Sasaram, claims to have purchased by deed of sale dated 26-2-81 on payment of a consideration of Rs.30.000/- and to have come in possession. It is not necessary to consider in detail argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the school building including the building of the officers, club in which the school was originally started was included in the suit land for the simple reason that the averment in the plaint of the title suit in which plaintiff No.1 is the Secretary of the school was that the public institution namely the school was being run in a building situated by the side of the disputed land known as officers club, since 1975", In another paragraph of the plaint it has been stated that a Kachcha platform had been repaired with brick all around in a portion of the disputed land and the other portion of the disputed land had been in possession and use of Bal Vikas vidyalaya, Sasaram. There is a specific averment in the plaint that the disputed land has been in use as play ground of the students of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya and for holding of functions and for hoisting of national flag and other functions connected with the Lions Club and the institution (school ). In other words there does not appear any controversy that the officers club accommodating a part of the school or for that matter any building of the school was not included in Schedule-A of the plaint which described the details of the disputed land. Thus prima facie there is no substance in the argument that the respondents-officials had demolished or ransacked any building or part of it located on the disputed land and had thereby violated the order of status quo granted by the Court. It is evident from the order dated 13-8-87 (Annexure- 2)passed in appeal affirming the order of the Sub-Judge that the learned Sub-Judge had ordered the plaintiffs and the defendants to maintain status quo of the land in dispute till the disposal of the suit, It may be mentioned here that the averments made in para 24 of the writ application that the Union of India and archaeological Survey of India had filed misc. Appeal against the order of the learned Sub-Judge are not factually correct as is evident from the order passed in the appeal vide Annexure-2 The appeal was filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 21-10-82 passed by the learned Sub-Judge in so far it was against the plaintiffs and this is also evident from para 5 of the order (Annexure-2 ). It appears that the plaintiffs went in appeal against the order of the sub-Judge because the Court had also restrained the plaintiffs along with the defendants from making any construction and changing the status quo when there was no such prayer made against the plaintiffs in the Court below. The appellate Court took the view that the learned Sub-Judge had rightly directed both the sides to maintain status quo of the disputed land till the disposal of the suit and in that view of the matter had dismissed the Misc. Appeal. Since the matter was pending in the suit between the parties, it is not necessary to make any observation touching the merits of the case of the parties including that of the Archaeological Survey of India that the entire C. S. plot has been declared to be a notified area under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Site Act and, therefore, no school can be run there. All these are matters for the civil Court to decide where the suit between the parties is presently pending. 6 It is not in dispute that an eviction proceeding was first initiated in the year 1984 and an order of removal of encroachment was passed as far back as in the year 1985. While respondent No.10 has averred that notices under sections 3 and 6 of the Act have also been served upon the petitioners, the petitioners deny that any notices under section 6 of the Act were served upon them. However, the petitioners do not deny the knowledge of the encroachment proceeding as also the fact that the Collector had remanded the case back to the D. C. L. R. after the order was passed in 1985. It appears that an order was finally passed by the D. C. L. R. in the encroachment proceeding on 29-1-96 for eviction of the encroachers i. e. the petitioners. There is controversy as to the date on which the petitioners came to know of the judgment. It appears that an order was finally passed by the D. C. L. R. in the encroachment proceeding on 29-1-96 for eviction of the encroachers i. e. the petitioners. There is controversy as to the date on which the petitioners came to know of the judgment. Their stand is that for a number of years they were not aware of any order passed in the proceeding despite their attempts to do so. It is not possible to decide the disputed question of fact whether the petitioners were or were not aware of the order passed in the encroachment proceeding on 29-1-96 in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. However, the admitted position is that the petitioners after being aware of the orders passed had taken steps for challenging the order before the appellate court. The petitioners in their supplementary affidavit have annexed copy of notice dated 13-2-% addressed to the principal (petitioner No.3) in the encroachment proceeding as Annexure-6. The notice also incorporates the fact that the articles removed from the building which had got been vacated had been kept in the office of the Archaeology Department of the Central government and their inventory was available in the Court. The notice (Annexure-6) had been issued by the Court of the D. C. L. R. and it had directed the principal of the school to obtain orders of the Court and take back his articles within three days of the receipt of the notice. Since the authorities had themselves intimated the school to take back their articles as per inventory prepared by the Court itself, there appears no good reason as to why the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for return of the articles. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above the petitioners do not appear to have made out any case of violation of the fundamental rights under Article 14 of the constitution of India or proved the existence of any other valid ground for this Court to grant any relief to them under Articles, 226 and 227 of the constitution. The writ application has thus no merit and is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case without costs. The writ application has thus no merit and is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case without costs. Nothing observed in course of this order, will be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case and shall not prejudice the case of the parties either in the title suit or in the land encroachment proceeding. Application Dismissed