JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.08.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhupur (respondent no. 4) in Misc. Petition No. 145 of 2018 whereby the execution of order dated 09.04.2018 was not interfered with despite the specific order passed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 2577 of 2018. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no. 6 and 7 had moved a petition being Misc. Case No. 145/2018 before the respondent no. 4 by impleading the petitioners as opposite parties for demarcation of the land situated at Mouza Karon, Mouza No. 652, P.S Karon, Khata (J.B) No. 706/2, Plot No. 1651, Sub-Division Madhupur, District Deoghar measuring an area of 89 decimals (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) and also for getting administrative and police help for the purpose of constructing boundary wall over the said land which was owned and possessed by the petitioner. The respondent no. 4, on the same day, passed the order dated 09.04.2018 deputing the Circle Officer, Karon (respondent no. 5) for the purpose of demarcation of the land and also to facilitate the construction work proposed to be carried out by the respondent nos. 6 and 7. Since the said order was not executed due to resistance of the petitioners, the respondent no. 4 again passed an order contained in Memo No. 675 dated 23.04.2018 wherein the respondent no.5 was deputed as magistrate for the purpose of demarcation of the said land in question and also for erecting boundary wall over the said land. The petitioners challenged the order dated 09.04.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 145/2018 before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2577 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.06.2018 by quashing the order dated 09.04.2018 and the consequential order dated 23.04.2018 with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 6 and 7. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition before the respondent no. 4 on 07.07.2018 alongwith the required documents. The respondent no. 4 to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 6 and 7. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition before the respondent no. 4 on 07.07.2018 alongwith the required documents. The respondent no. 4 passed an order dated 25.08.2018 stating therein that the execution of order dated 09.4.2018 was already done on 01.06.2018 and 02.06.2018 and hence there was no reason to pass any further order in this regard and thus the proceeding of the case was dropped. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are claiming their title over the property in question (the said land) independently and the respondent no. 6 and 7 by generating forged and fabricated documents are trying to take over the possession of the said land by abusing the process of law and also by influencing the State administrative machineries. The respondent no. 4 had no jurisdiction to entertain any petition for demarcation of the land more so when the same was the subject matter of private litigation between the two parties. The respondent nos. 6 and 7 do not have any right over the property. The only recourse available to the respondent nos. 6 and 7 for the purpose of getting possession over the said property is by approaching the civil court of competent jurisdiction. It is further submitted that since it was observed by this Court that the order dated 09.04.2018 cannot be sustained in law due to not issuing any notice to the petitioners seeking their response in the matter, the entire proceeding initiated on the basis of the order dated 09.04.2018 is vitiated and hence even if the order dated 09.04.2018 had been executed, the same should be reversed and the petitioners be put in possession of the said land from which they have been dispossessed in the garb of an illegal order. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 4 executed the order dated 09.04.2018 in haste despite being aware of the proceeding of this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6 and 7 submits that the present respondents are in possession of the said land since long and are also paying rent to the government. The respondent no. 4 executed the order dated 09.04.2018 in haste despite being aware of the proceeding of this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6 and 7 submits that the present respondents are in possession of the said land since long and are also paying rent to the government. The respondent no. 4 has passed the order dated 25.08.2018 after going through the documents available before him and as such no interference is required under writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petitioners were illegally objecting to raising of the boundary wall over the said land and as such the present respondents had filed the application on which the respondent no. 4 had passed the order for getting the said land demarcated on the basis of available documents with the help of local administration. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Earlier, the petitioners had moved before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2577 of 2018 challenging the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 contending that the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. At the time of hearing of the case, neither the petitioner nor the private respondents put forth the actual fact that the order dated 09.04.2018 had already been executed. This Court, vide order dated 11.06.2018 after taking into consideration of the fact that no any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the order dated 09.04.2018 by the respondent no.4 , held as under:- “4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. It appears from the record that a petition was filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 before the respondent no. 2 on 09.04.2018 for providing administrative and police help to get their land demarcated and to construct boundary wall over the same. It further appears that on the same day i.e. on 09.04.2018, the order was passed by the respondent no. 2 directing the Circle Officer, Karon to get the land in question demarcated on the basis of the available documents. The respondent no. 2 also requested the S.D.P.O., Madhupur to provide police force for the said purpose. It further appears that on the same day i.e. on 09.04.2018, the order was passed by the respondent no. 2 directing the Circle Officer, Karon to get the land in question demarcated on the basis of the available documents. The respondent no. 2 also requested the S.D.P.O., Madhupur to provide police force for the said purpose. The limited grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 without issuance of any notice to them though they were made party in Misc. Petition no. 145 of 2018. I find substance in the said contention of the petitioners as it is evident from the record that the petition was filed before the respondent no.2 by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 on 09.04.2018 and on the same day, the respondent no. 2 passed the order without issuing any notice to the petitioners seeking their response in the matter. 5. Thus on the said limited point, the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Petition No. 145 of 2018 (Annexure- 2 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order contained in memo no. 675 dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure- 6 to the writ petition) is also set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2 to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondent nos. 3 and 4, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 6. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by this court passed in W.P.(C) No. 2577 of 2018 has not been complied by the respondent no. 4. 7. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I have gone through the order dated 25.08.2018 passed by the respondent no.4. In the said order, the respondent no. 4 has observed that the order dated 09.04.2018 was already executed on 01.06.2018 and 02.06.2018 before passing the order by this Court on 11.06.2018. It has further been observed by the respondent no. In the said order, the respondent no. 4 has observed that the order dated 09.04.2018 was already executed on 01.06.2018 and 02.06.2018 before passing the order by this Court on 11.06.2018. It has further been observed by the respondent no. 4 that after the vesting of Zamindari, separate Khata was opened in the name of the ancestors of both the parties and the rent fixation was done in their favour. Moreover, the appeal of the ancestors of the petitioners filed against the opening of khata and rent fixation in favour of the father of respondent nos. 6 and 7 was also dismissed by the revenue court of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Deoghar. It has also been observed that at present the private respondents herein are also paying the rent of the said land to the Government. In the present survey also, the Khata has been opened in the settlement office in the name of the legal heirs of Vishwanath Acharya. It has finally been held that as per the revenue records, the claim of the private respondents has been found genuine and the petitioners herein failed to show any document in support of their claim in spite of sufficient opportunity given to them. 8. Thus, I find no substance in the contention of the petitioners that in spite of the order of this Court, the respondent no. 4 arbitrarily passed the impugned order. Rather, the respondent no. 4 has specifically held that the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence in support of their claim. 9. It is also an admitted case of the petitioners that the Title Suit No. 33 of 2017/97 of 2017 filed by them was previously dismissed due to non-prosecution. However, the restoration application being Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 35/2018 has been allowed and thus the petitioners may now agitate their entire claim before the Civil Court. 10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any ground to pass any further direction in the matter which is purely a civil dispute between the petitioners and private respondents. However, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate the matter in the pending civil suit. It is made clear that the aforesaid observations shall not prejudice the respective cases of the parties before the civil court. 11. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 12. However, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate the matter in the pending civil suit. It is made clear that the aforesaid observations shall not prejudice the respective cases of the parties before the civil court. 11. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 12. I.A. No. 9199 of 2018 and 9261 of 2018 also stand disposed of.