JUDGMENT : The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. At the request of learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the office are ignored. 3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: (i) For quashing the notice as contained in letter No. 01 dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.5 whereby the petitioner has been directed to produce the details with regard to the numbers of High Yield Drilled Tubewells inside the suit land and also to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ regarding installation of the same, failing which the boring would be sealed. (ii) For quashing the notice dated 13.08.2021 as contained in memo No. 869(ii) dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.6 whereby the petitioner has been directed to submit show cause as to why it has not removed the encroachment made upon the land appertaining to Khata No. 45, Plot Nos. 49 & 551, measuring an area of 1.0 Acre, 12.72 Acres, 1.92 Acres & 6.64 Acres; Khata No. 85, Plot Nos. 30 & 10, measuring an area of 7.89 Acres, 3.11 Acres & 2.63 Acres, Mouza- Hazam, P.S-Hatia, District-Ranchi, which is the subject matter of Title Suit No. 335/2016, failing which the respondent No.6 would proceed for removal of the encroachment upon the suit land. (iii) For quashing the notice as contained in memo No. 928(ii) dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.6 whereby the petitioner was directed to remain physically present on 21.08.2021 and to extend co-operation for conducting site inspection and after measurement, to demarcate the land in question. (iv) Upon quashing the aforesaid notices, for issuance of an appropriate direction restraining the concerned respondents from interfering and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit land during pendency of Original Title Suit No. 335/2016. 4. Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, submits that the land appertaining to Khata Nos. 75, 45 & 85 of Mouza-Hajam, P.S-Hatia, District-Ranchi was held by the ex-landlord, namely, Lal Harak Nath Sahdeo, who settled the same through his constituted power of attorney (his grandson), namely, Kisto Kali Nath Shahdeo by way of registered deed dated 09.09.1947 in favour of Dr. Shiv Shankar Sahay Srivastava, who came in possession of the said land and paid rent to the ex-landlord. Shiv Shankar Sahay Srivastava, who came in possession of the said land and paid rent to the ex-landlord. After vesting of Zamindari, Dr. Sahay was recognized as Raiyat by the State and demand was opened in his name by fixing the rent. Thereafter, he started paying rent to the State Government. After the death of the settlee, the said land was partitioned among his legal heirs, who got their names mutated and started paying rent. Subsequently, they sold their respective shares to Suresh Kumar Saraogi, Raj Kumar Tibrewal and Sharad Kumar Modi by way of three separate sale-deeds, all dated 28.06.1995 and the purchasers also got their respective land mutated in their names and paid rent to the government for the same. The petitioner with an intention to establish a school, purchased the said land by virtue of three registered sale-deeds, all dated 03.01.2008, from the aforesaid three persons and applied for mutation of the same in its favour. The respondent No.6 vide order dated 31.03.2008, though allowed mutation with respect to 1.46 Acres of land of R.S. Plot No. 26 and 2.5 Acres of R.S Plot No. 29, both under Khata No. 75, however, rejected mutation with respect to 7.89 Acres of land of R.S Plot No. 30 under Khata No. 85 and 1.92 Acres of land of R.S Plot No. 551 under Khata No. 45. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred three separate mutation appeals before the respondent No.4, who allowed the same setting aside the order of the respondent No.6. In compliance of the said order, the respondent No.6 mutated the name of the petitioner in respect of the said land. In the meantime, the State preferred three separate mutation revisions before the respondent No.2 and vide common order dated 16.11.2010, the order of the respondent No.4 was set aside and the order of the respondent No.6 was affirmed. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred W.P.(C) No. 934 of 2011, W.P.(C) No. 940 of 2011 & W.P.(C) No. 946 of 2011 before this Court, which were allowed vide order dated 10.04.2012 of this Court setting aside the order of the respondent No.2. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred W.P.(C) No. 934 of 2011, W.P.(C) No. 940 of 2011 & W.P.(C) No. 946 of 2011 before this Court, which were allowed vide order dated 10.04.2012 of this Court setting aside the order of the respondent No.2. Against the said order, the State preferred appeals before the Division Bench of this Court being L.P.A No. 103 of 2013, L.P.A No. 104 of 2013 & L.P.A No. 105 of 2013, which were allowed by the learned Division Bench setting aside the order dated 10.04.2012 passed in the said writ petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 7306- 7308/2014, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said appeals vide order dated 28.03.2014 directing the parties to maintain status-quo for a period of six weeks with a liberty to the petitioner to resort to any other proceeding available to it in law and seek interim order. Subsequent to dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 7306-7308/2014, the petitioner filed Review Petition (C) No(s). 1938-1940/2014 against the said order dated 28.03.2014, which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.10.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original (Title) Suit No. 335/2016 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Ranchi seeking following reliefs: “36. That the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as claimed hereunder:- (a) On adjudication of facts as aforesaid the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff may be recognized and accepted under the law and accordingly the plaintiff’s title be declared with respect to the land in the suit fully described in the Schedules “A”, “B” and “C” hereto. (b) The defendants be restrained by issuance of the temporary injunction from putting forward any claim over the property in the suit and in taking any action against the plaintiff for its dispossession or eviction from the suit property either by the defendants themselves or through their agent, servants, employees, labourers, contractors or any other agency and temporary and ad-interim injunction on the above terms may also be granted.” 5. The suit land as mentioned in Schedule “A” of the plaint is detailed as under: “SCHEDULE “A” All that piece and parcel of 13.72 Acres of land in R.S. Plot No. 30 marked as Sub-Plot No. 30/B, area 7.89 Acres under Khata No. 85, R.S. Plot No. 26, area 1.46 Acres & R.S. Plot No. 29, area 2.45 Acres, both under Khata No. 75 and R.S. Plot No. 551 marked as Sub-Plot Nos. 551/B, area 1.92 Acres under Khata No. 45 along with pucca boundary wall, buildings and other structures standing thereon and situated at Village-Hazam, P.S-Ranchi now Hatia, Thana No. 281, District-Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand” 6. The petitioner also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC in the said suit seeking interim injunction in relation to its dispossession or eviction from the suit property by the defendants (the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi & Ors.). The learned Court below vide order dated 09.12.2016, disposed of the said application of the petitioner directing the parties to maintain status-quo over the suit property with an observation that the petitioner shall also not make any change in the suit property without previous permission of the Court. Similarly, the State was also restrained from changing the structure of the suit property by way of forced destruction of the same till disposal of the suit. 7. It is thus submitted by learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that undermining the fact that an order of status-quo with regard to the suit property has been passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Ranchi in the said suit, the impugned notices dated 12.08.2021, 13.08.2021 & 19.08.2021 have been issued by the respondent authorities. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner in any manner has carried out any change in the existing status of the suit property. Since the respondent authorities are bent upon to harass the petitioner, as would be evident from the impugned notices, operation of the same may be stayed during pendency of the present writ petition. 8. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C to A.A.G-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, prays for and is allowed four weeks’ time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. 9. Put up this case on 26.10.2021 under the heading ‘For Admission’. 10. 8. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C to A.A.G-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, prays for and is allowed four weeks’ time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. 9. Put up this case on 26.10.2021 under the heading ‘For Admission’. 10. Till then, operation of the impugned notices dated 12.08.2021, 13.08.2021 & 19.08.2021 (Annexure- 7, 9 & 11 respectively to the writ petition) issued by the concerned respondents shall remain stayed.