JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the following direction has been sought for: (A) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding the respondents Circle Officer, Torpa and O/c Torpa P.S to show cause as to under what authority they have given possession to the private respondents after demarcating the land pertaining to Khata no.35, Plot no.1362, 2584, 2590, Area 1.69 Acres of Mouza Torpa, P.S-Torpa District Khunti (herein after referred as ''Land in question''), half share in spite of the information given to them about the Second Appeal no.282/2018 is pending before the Hon''ble Jharkhand High Court on 26.12.2018 forcibly, giving threat to the petitioner that they would put in jail to him if at all he obstructs to do so in favour of the private respondents. (B) For issuance of appropriate writ writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to declare such demarcation and possession over the said land illegal and without jurisdiction. 2 . The specific case of the petitioner is that he claims to be title holder of the land pertains to Khata no.35, Plot no.1362, 2584, 2590, Area 1.69 Acres of Mouza Torpa, P.S-Torpa, District Khunti. 3 . A partition suit has been filed being Title Partition Suit No.03 of 2004 which was dismissed, against which title appeal being Title Appeal No.77 of 2007 which was also dismissed by the appellate court against which the second appeal being Second Appeal No.282 of 2018 has been filed, however no interim stay has been passed in the aforesaid second appeal. 4 . The occasion arose for the petitioner to file this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the State authorities, exceeding his jurisdiction, are transferring aforesaid land in favour of other people. According to the petitioner although the second appeal is pending and since State is not party to the said proceeding, therefore, no relief can be claimed in the said second appeal as he has sought for direction to the respondent for protection so that land in question may not be transferred, by illegally dispossessing the petitioner, in favour of private respondent nos.6 and 7 since according to the petitioner he is still in possession. 5 . This Court after considering the factual aspects more particularly, the pendency of the second appeal, is not inclined to extend relief to the petitioner. 6 . Mr. 5 . This Court after considering the factual aspects more particularly, the pendency of the second appeal, is not inclined to extend relief to the petitioner. 6 . Mr. H.K. Mahto, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since grievance has been agitated before the competent authoritySuperintendent of Police, Khunti, he may be directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner. 7 . Learned counsel for the State has not raised objection to such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8 . In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Superintendent of Police, Khunti for redressal of his grievance.