ORDER NAVIN SINHA Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent Corporation. No one appears on behalf of the private respondents 4 and 5 despite valid service of notice. 2. The present appeal arises from order dated 27.11.2012 dismissing C.W.J.C. No.6055/08 opining that the controversy between the appellant and the private respondents with regard to right, interest and title over a passage of land could well be decided in the Title Suit No.10/07 filed by the Appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to persuade us that the building plan of the private respondents had been sanctioned contrary to the Building By-laws which has not been considered by the Learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that from the order of the Executive Officer dated 3.2.2009, as affirmed by the Commissioner, it appears that the controversy raised by the parties before the Corporation was only with regard to Municipal Survey Plot No.694 and 694/ 2019 and whether they were public roads. It does not appear from the order of the Executive Officer that any issues with regard to the sanction of the plan contrary to Building By-laws was raised. 5. The order under Appeal does not notice the facts of the case and therefore it is necessary for us to do so. 6. The private respondents appear to have approached the Executive Officer with the grievance that they were subsequent purchasers of Municipal Survey Plot No.700 to the extent of 1542 sq.ft. and were not being allowed user of Municipal Survey Plot No.694/2019 which was a public lane because of which the continuation by them on Municipal Survey Plot No.700 was being hampered. The appellant contended that Municipal Survey Plot No.692, 693 and 694 were private lands. Municipal Survey Plot No.694 was a private road. Relying on a municipal survey of 1932/33, The Executive Officer by order dated 3.2.2009 held that Municipal Survey Plot No.694/2019 was property of the Municipal Corporation. The Executive Officer also arrived at the conclusion from the Municipal Survey that Plot No.694 was a private road which did not come under Section-435 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. Municipal Survey Plot No.694/2019 only qualified as a public road under Section- 435. In conclusion and in view of the pendency of Title Suit No.10/07, he declined to pass any further orders. 7. Municipal Survey Plot No.694/2019 only qualified as a public road under Section- 435. In conclusion and in view of the pendency of Title Suit No.10/07, he declined to pass any further orders. 7. In view of the finding by the Executive Officer, as affirmed by the Commissioner, unless it has been upset by any appropriate authority or Court, Municipal Survey Plot No.694 being a private road no one can claim forcible access to it except in accordance with law. Insofar as the question of the plan of the private respondents having been sanctioned allegedly contrary to Building By-laws, we do not find that the matter has ever been raised by the appellant before the Municipal Authorities. A bald assertion to that effect has been made in paragraph 12 of the writ application. No date of such representation filed has been mentioned much less any copy enclosed. There is no occasion for us to entertain that objection at this stage as the first authority. If the appellant is of the opinion that the building plan has been sanctioned contrary to the Building By-laws, he may invite the attention of the Municipal Commissioner to the same and we direct that the Municipal Commissioner shall in that event satisfy himself if the building plan was in accordance with law and pass necessary appropriate orders after hearing the parties concerned. 8. The Municipal Commissioner while considering any objections to the plan is expected to also look into the aspect of Municipal Survey Plot No.694 being private lane insofar as the question for sanction of the building plan of the private respondents is concerned. 9. The appeal stands disposed.