ORAL ORDER SHEEMA ALI KHAN I.A. No. 308 of 2012 This interlocutory application has been filed for adding the Deputy Collector Land Reform, Sadar, Madhubani as respondent no. 5 and for quashing the notices contained in Annexures 6 and 7. 2. The interlocutory application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to add the Deputy Collector Land Reform, Sadar, Madhubani as respondent no. 5 in this writ application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 4. This application has been filed for quashing of the impugned notice dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure-1), passed in Encroachment Case No. 24(MU). The petitioner appeared and filed reply to the notice in which it has been stated that Plot No. 1853 appertaining to Khata No. 1158 has been carved out of old Plot No. 4633, measuring .33 decimals. Subsequently in the rejoinder application it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that Plot No. 4633 has wrongly been typed in his petition rather it should be read as 4634. In any event on receipt of the show-cause the Circle Officer, Pandaul referred the mater to the D.C.L.R. under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. The petitioner has been noticed by the D.C.L.R. vide Annexures 6 and 7. 5. This notice is under challenge before this Court. 6. The reference made by the Circle Officer, Pandaul to the D.C.L.R. is on the basis of the fact that Plot No. 4633 is recorded as “Gair Majarua Aam Rasta” and as such, it is said that the petitioner has encroached upon the “Aam Rasta”. To substantiate the claim that Plot No. 1853 has not been carved out of Old Plot No. 4633, counsel for the petitioner refers to annexures 8 and 9. 7. Annexure-8 is the Purcha which indicates that Plot No. 1853 has been carved out of part of Old Plot No. 4634; whereas Annexure-9 the Khatiyan indicates that Plot No. 4634 is recorded in the name of the ancestors of the petitioner. From the above two documents it would prima facie appear that Plot No. 4634 is not a public road. The boundary to the petitioner’s Plot No. 4634 has been shown as North-Road, East and West- Tij Narayan Singh and on the South-Road. From the above two documents it would prima facie appear that Plot No. 4634 is not a public road. The boundary to the petitioner’s Plot No. 4634 has been shown as North-Road, East and West- Tij Narayan Singh and on the South-Road. By the aforesaid Khatiyan, the petitioner purports to support his case to say that the petitioner had not under any circumstances encroached upon the public road. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the issuance of Annexures 6 and 7 on the ground that the D.C.L.R. does not have the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute as indicated aforesaid under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. Referring to sub sections 2 and 3 of section 4 which reads as follows:- (2) The Competent Authority shall not have jurisdiction to review or reopen any finally concluded and adjudicated proceeding under any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1. The Competent Authority shall exercise his authority for resolving the dispute brought before him on the basis of any final order passed by any of the authorities empowered to do so in the Acts contained in Schedule-1 of this Act. (3) The Competent Authority shall not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any fresh rights of allottee/settlee or a raiyat which is not yet determined and is required to be determined in accordance with provisions contained in any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1. Provided that where rights of allottee/settlee or raiyat are already determined under any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1, the Competent Authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain cases appertaining to matters enumerated in sub-section (1). Schedule 1 refers to the acts which bars the jurisdiction of the concerned authority which are as follows: 1. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 2. The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 3. The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 4. The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 5. The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 6. The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 10. There is no doubt about the fact that the D.C.L.R. or any other authority assigned cannot interfere in the matter, if the matter falls under any of the “Acts” as mentioned in Schedule 1. The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 10. There is no doubt about the fact that the D.C.L.R. or any other authority assigned cannot interfere in the matter, if the matter falls under any of the “Acts” as mentioned in Schedule 1. It has been argued that the D.C.L.R. is purporting to make changes in the entries in the Jamanbandi which he does not have the authority to do. 11. It appears to this Court that the entire dispute has actually arisen because of the mistakes of the Circle Officer as well as the petitioner. The Circle Officer ought to have looked into the Khatiyan which was annexed along with Annexure-2 before he sent the matter to be decided by the D.C.L.R., similarly, the petitioner should have noticed the mistake in his petition and corrected it at that stage. 12. The only question thus which needs to be determined is whether the Plot No. 1853 has been carved out of Plot No. 4634 or 4633. If the plot has been carved out of Plot No. 4634, there is no question of correction of any entry. That does not mean to say that the petitioner could not have encroached upon the road of Plot No. 4633, which is the question which can be determined by the Circle Officer. At this stage, perhaps the reference to the D.C.L.R. is unwarranted. In the circumstances, I quash the notices contained in Annxures 6 and 7 remanding the matter back for determination to the Circle Officer, Pandaul, District Madhubani who will decide the issue as framed above after looking into the Khatiyan, Purcha and the revenue records. 13. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.