ORDER Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Court is in pains to hear the manner in which the Superintendent of Police of Railway Police Force, Patna has acted in the matter of making construction of six residential quarters over the lands admittedly belonging to the Ara Sasaram Light Railway Company Limited. The Ara Sasaram Light Railway Company Limited stopped functioning in the year 1978. The company went into liquidation and a case was filed before the Kolkata High Court as the company was registered in Kolkata. Ultimately, the High Court of Kolkata in Civil Appeal No. 415 of 1992 passed an order on 06.01.1997 holding that property of the company would be sold to the best bidder. At that stage, Rs. 1.9 crores was offered as payment for part of the property, whereas the State of Bihar who was also party in the case had valued the whole property at Rs. 1.28 crores. The Kolkata High Court held that it should be sold at the best price and, therefore, ordered for an auction sale. Once, the Court held that the State of Bihar did not have any superior claim to the property in question, the petitioner company began to sell the property. 3. Once, the sale of the property began, another hurdle was created in the way of the company as the purchasers and the company were not allowed to registered the document of sale. As a result of non-registration, Krishna Singh holding the Power of Attorney on behalf of the liquidator filed a writ application in this Court, numbered as CWJC No. 9790 of 2008 and analogous cases. While disposing of the writ applications, the Court held that the Collector of the District did not have any right to stop the documents of sale from being registered on the ground that the lands belong to the State of Bihar. The Court observed that the Official Liquidator was not acting individually, but was acting upon the authority and orders of the Court of competent jurisdiction, which was Kolkata High Court. In fact, the best solution for the State of Bihar would be to approach the Kolkata High Court instead of blocking the registration of the sale document. This order was challenged by filing LPA No. 1653 of 2010, which was dismissed on 25.07.2011. 4. In fact, the best solution for the State of Bihar would be to approach the Kolkata High Court instead of blocking the registration of the sale document. This order was challenged by filing LPA No. 1653 of 2010, which was dismissed on 25.07.2011. 4. After the aforesaid litigations and issues that have been raised by the State of Bihar, finally vide Annexure-9, respondent no. 8 i.e. Superintendent of Police of Railway Police Force, Patna had addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, Bihar Police Bhawan Nirman Nigam, Patna Division, Patna, which reads as follows:- <span class="Hfont">mi;qZDr izlax ,oa fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa lwfpr djuk gS fd Hkkstiqj ftykUrxZr jsy iqfyl ykbZu esa “6” vij loksZfMusV vkokl ds fy, tehu vuqiyCèk jgus ds lanHkZ esa izklafxd Kkikad ls lwfpr fd;k x;k FkkA vkids }kjk fn;s x;s lwpuk ds vkyksd esa tehu miyCèk djkus ds lacaèk esa bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 307/lkñ 'kkñ fnukad 9.2.2011 ds }kjk iqfyl vèkh{kd Hkkstiqj ls vuqjksèk fd;k x;k gSA iqfyl vèkh{kd Hkkstiqj vkjk us vius Kkikad 496/lkñ 'kkñ fnukad 01 ekpZ 2011 ds }kjk vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd (vkèkqfudj.k) fcgkj] iVuk ds ikl vkokl fuekZ.k gsrq uD'kk layXu dj vko';d dk;ZokbZ gsrq Hksth x;h gSA izkIr i=k dh Nk;k&izfr lkFk layXu dj Hksth tk jgh gSA vr% vuqjksèk gS fd vki vius Lrj ls vkokl fuekZ.k gsrq fu;qDr fd;s x;s laosnd dks lwfpr djus dk d"V fd;k tk;sA 5. In pursuance of Annexure-9, respondent no. 4 issued an advertisement for construction of six residential quarters. Respondent no. 10 was the highest bidder and was granted the contract work of construction of the said quarters. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid construction of quarters, moved before this Court and there has been an order of stay. The respondent no. 8 i.e. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railways (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that they do not intend to do any further constructions over the lands in question, whereas the Collector of the District has filed an affidavit stating that he is not responsible for issuing any directions to carry out any work over the lands in question. Respondent no. 4 has also filed an affidavit stating therein that he was acting on the instructions of respondent no. 8. 7. All in all, the respondents in this case except respondent no. Respondent no. 4 has also filed an affidavit stating therein that he was acting on the instructions of respondent no. 8. 7. All in all, the respondents in this case except respondent no. 10 have filed affidavits saying that they have no concern over the lands in question and they do not intend to disturb the possession of the petitioner company or the purchasers from the petitioner company. 8. As far as the respondent no. 10 is concerned, he was acting on the dictates of respondents 8/9, it would be open for respondent no. 10 to raise his claims against respondents 8/9. His rights, if any, flows from the rights of the State of Bihar, through its various authorities. 9. In the result, this Court directs that the respondents should vacate the lands appertaining to Khata No. 185, Khesra No. 75, measuring 30 decimals and Khesra No. 81 measuring 24 decimals as well as lands appertaining to Khata No. 120, Khesra No. 79, measuring 22 decimals, Khata No. 161 Khesra No. 180, measuring 80 decimals forthwith on receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. This writ application is thus allowed. ?