JUDGMENT : NAVNEET KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent State as well as respondent – Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 02.07.2008 (Annesure-15) passed in Rent Fixation Appeal No. 09 R 15/2007-08 by the Additional Collector, Ranchi whereby the order dated 17.05.2003 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC), Ranchi in Rent Fixation Case No. 171/2002-03/20/2003-04 has been set aside ex parte. Petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents restraining them to delete the plot no.1735 from Jamabandi of the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner purchased the land by a valid instrument and is continuing in possession of the said land. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has purchased the land in question from one Joytish Chandra Ghosh and other legal heirs of Khitish Chandra Ghosh by a deed of transfer of absolute sale executing a sale deed on 17.05.2002 with respect to M.S Plot No. 1735 and 1736 at Mouza Chadri, Ward No.1, Thana No. 199, Plot No. 1735 and 1736 having total area of 26 Kathas and 9 Chhataks and 17 Kathas and 9 Chhataks respectively having total area of 44 Kathas and 2 Chhataks, Petitioner after purchase of lands in question with execution of the sale deed applied for mutation before the Circle Officer, Ranchi Sadar as well as for fixation of rent and accordingly rent fixation case no. 171/2002-03/20/2003-04 was initiated wherein vide order dated 03.10.2002 (Annexure-4) notice was issued for filing objection as well as a direction was issued to Halka Karmachari to furnish the report relating to the land in M.S. Plot No. 1735 and 1736 at Mouza- Chadri. Pursuant to the said order dated 03.10.2002 a detailed enquiry was made and on the basis of the inquiry report the Circle Officer, Ranchi Circle vide order dated 17.05.2003 (Annexure-5) recommended for fixation of rent of the concerned land in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order dated 03.10.2002 a detailed enquiry was made and on the basis of the inquiry report the Circle Officer, Ranchi Circle vide order dated 17.05.2003 (Annexure-5) recommended for fixation of rent of the concerned land in favour of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Circle Officer, Ranchi Circle, the LRDC, Ranchi vide order dated 17.05.2003 fixed the rent of the land of the petitioner pertaining to Mouza Chadri, Ward No.1, Thana No. 199, Plot No. 1735 and 1736 having total area of 26 Kathas and 9 Chhataks and 17 Kathas and 9 Chhataks respectively having total area of 44 Kathas and 2 Chhataks, which is payable since 1955-56. (Annexure-6). Further, it is stated that pursuant to the recommendation of the Circle Officer, Ranchi and the subsequent order of LRDC, Ranchi dated 17.05.2003, an order was passed for mutation of the said land in favour of the petitioner, and, accordingly an order of correction in Jamabandi was issued and after necessary correction petitioner has given rent to the State of Jharkhand and is being granted rent receipt. Photocopies of rent receipts are Annexure-7 and correction in Jamabandi is Annexure- 8. 4. It is further submitted that during the process of fixation of rent, there was some confusion relating to schedule of the property in the sale deed dated 17.05.2002 since on the M.S. Plot No. 1735, road and drainage has been mentioned in the schedule of property consisting of lands of both the plots, namely, M.S Plot No. 1735 and 1736 at Mouza Chadri, Ward No.1, Thana No. 199, Plot No. 1735 and 1736 having total area of 26 Kathas and 9 Chhataks and 17 Kathas and 9 Chhataks respectively having total area of 44 Kathas and 2 Chhataks . However, in order to clarify the same, the successors of Late Khitish Chandra Ghosh (Vendors of sale-deed) sworn on affidavit that the entire lands including road and drainage inside M.S. Plot No. 1735 along with lands of M.S. Plot no. 1736 has been sold to the petitioner by the sale deed dated 17.05.2002. 5. However, in order to clarify the same, the successors of Late Khitish Chandra Ghosh (Vendors of sale-deed) sworn on affidavit that the entire lands including road and drainage inside M.S. Plot No. 1735 along with lands of M.S. Plot no. 1736 has been sold to the petitioner by the sale deed dated 17.05.2002. 5. It is further submitted that respondent no.3 Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC) being aggrieved with the order dated 17.05.2003 (Annexure-6) preferred an appeal before the court of the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi in Rent Fixation Appeal 09 R15/07-08 wherein the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi passed an order dated 02.07.2008 by which the order passed by the LRDC, Ranchi dated 17.05.2003 and the subsequent compliance order given by the Circle Officer, Ranchi dated 05.06.2003 have been set aside with a direction to the Circle Officer, Ranchi town to delete Plot No. 1735 from the Jamabandi of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the said impugned order has been passed ex parte although there was paper publication of the notice in the newspaper of Kolkata and Jamshedpur but unfortunately petitioner did not receive the notice nor know about the case and, therefore, could not appear to contest his case. It has been also submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex parte behind the back of the petitioner and due to ulterior motives, the notice of appeal was published in the Newspapers of Kolkata and Jamshedpur although the petitioner was resident of Ranchi. Thereafter petitioner preferred a writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 4163 of 2003 for restraining the RMC from taking forcible possession of the land in question, which was subsequently dismissed and therefore a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No 294 of 2004 was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2005 with a liberty to the petitioner to get title decided in a competent court of law. Thereafter petitioner filed a Title Suit in the court of Sub Judge VI, Ranchi vide T.S. No. 112 of 2006 in which one injunction petition was also filed by the petitioner and the learned court below after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case granted the injunction in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 29.01.2011, the operative portion of which is reproduced hereunder: “Heard both parties and after perusal of the record and after hearing of arguments of both parties, I found that suit was going on for the evidence of plaintiffs but defendants has started disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. So protection must be given to the plaintiffs for the peaceful possession over the suit property by way of restraining the defendant no. 1 from taking any coercive step. I found from the rulings relied upon by the plaintiffs that "person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession, he may even use reasonable force to keep out the trespasser. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property, belonging to the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law, he can not take the law in his own hands law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted- it is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitled him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. Lordship further held that plaintiffs feel and aggrieved from the conduct of defendants then court restrained him from interfering with the possession and enjoyment with the suit property." As per the ruling, I found and hold that peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property may be protected and I agreed with the arguments and submissions of the plaintiff. However, defendants counsel submitted that defendants is not making in construction over the suit property and no any injury or irreparable loss to the plaintiff but I am not agreed with the argument of the counsel of the defendant as the matter is going on for deciding the suit plot regarding both plots nos. us 1735 and 1736: So. Peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property may be protected by restraining the defendants. us 1735 and 1736: So. Peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property may be protected by restraining the defendants. So, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is apprehended by the acts of the defendants. Therefore, by restraining the defendant no. 1 from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property till disposal of the suit. Accordingly, Injunction petition dated 11.07.2006 is hereby disposed of.” 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said order of injunction passed in Title Suit No. 112 of 2006 by the court of learned Sub Jude VI, Ranchi vide order dated 29.01.2011 is still in force. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 02.07.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi is bad in law since despite the fact that one Title Suit was pending with respect to, inter alia, the land in question i.e., M.S. Plot No. 1735 measuring an area of 0.281 acres, the impugned order has been passed. It is further submitted that that impugned order dated 02.07.2008 is otherwise bad in law and fit to be quashed on the ground that the appeal was preferred by the respondent no.3 after a lapse of 4 years and without condoning the delay the impugned order has been passed ex parte, which is hopelessly time barred under Section 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 7. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner have had an occasion to come before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 319 of 2011 where under it was observed by the learned writ court that from the sale deed of M.S. Plot No. 1736 it is clear that petitioner had purchased from his vendor the land pertaining to M.S. Plot no. 1736 along with drainage and road to use for M.S. Plot No. 1736 but situated on Plot No. 1735. For better appreciation, the operative portion of the order passed in W.P.(Cr.) No 319 of 2011 dated 27.11.2015 is quoted hereunder: “All these facts do suggest that the land of plot no.1735 recorded in the Municipal record as road and drainage had lost its character much much before and its possession seems to be with original vendor and then subsequently purchaser. In that event, M/s. Binay Prakash (HUF) the vendor of the petitioners had earlier submitted map for its sanction for construction of a commercial building over plot no.1735 and 1736 which was sanctioned. However, subsequent to that, M/s. Ashshala Corporation (petitioner no.1) submitted a map for its sanction in the year 2008 for construction of a hotel over the land bearing plot no.1736 only which was sanctioned. Subsequently, when the C.B.I took up the matter pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the prosecution was launched against the petitioners on the accusation that map though was sanctioned for construction of a hotel over the land bearing plot no.1736 but the authority of the RRDA allowed the petitioners to use the land bearing plot no.1735 as set back. It would be pertinent to note here that according to the petitioners, the petitioners have left the land at side set back of about 4 feet which does fall within the area of plot no.1736. However, according to the C.B.I, the petitioners were required to leave the land as front set back which would be coming, as per the case of the petitioners, 7 feet and then part of it will be falling in plot no.1735. Thus, only when in terms of Note 5 of the Bye-laws the petitioner would be required to leave front set back towards the land bearing plot no.1735 it could be said that the authorities of RRDA in connivance with the petitioners did give the benefit to the petitioner of plot no.1735. It be further recorded that since plot no.1735 has been recorded as road in Municipal record it is being considered by the C.B.I in terms of Note 5 that front set back is to be left out on northern side but from the case which has been made out by the petitioners by getting interim orders in their favour at different point of time and also from injunction order it becomes quite apparent that the land appertaining to Plot no.1735 was never being used as road since long. If that is so the land of Plot no.1735 would never be considered as ‘Street’ in terms of clause 2.74 of the Bye-laws which reads as under: “Any highway street, lane, pathway, alley, stair way, passage way, carriage way, footway, square, place or bridge whether a thorough fare or Dead End, over which the public have a right of passage or assess or have passed and have access uninterruptedly for a period of one year whether existing or proposed in any scheme and includes all bunds culverts sidewall, traffic island, road side trees and hedges retaining wall, fenses barrier and railing within the street lines”. Thus, definition of street clearly suggest that if any land over which the public have right of passage or access or have passed and have access uninterruptedly for a period of one year, would be considered to be a street but it has never been the case of C.B.I that since one year before the searching of map, the land of Plot no.1735 was being used as street rather the C.B.I has been taking the said land as road on the basis of the municipal survey of record prepared in the year 1928 whereas according to the case of the petitioner as stated above, it becomes quite apparent that the said land of Plot No.1735 was never being used as road/street since long. In that event, question of leaving front set back towards northern side in terms of note 5 of the Bye-laws never does arise. Now the next question does arise as to whether front set back is required to be left in terms of note 5 of the Bye-laws on northern side. For determining this issue, one needs to take notice of Note 5 of the Table 2A-11 Ranchi Planning Standards & Building Bye-laws 2002 which reads as follows: “In case of corner/double frontage/tandem sites all the sides facing the road shall be treated as front sides and regulations applies accordingly to maintain the building’s better visibility. Other non-road facing sides shall be treated as side setbacks.” From its perusal it does appear that stipulation has been made that on all the sides through which road passes, front set backs are required to be left, in case of corner/double frontage/ tandem sites. Other non-road facing sides shall be treated as side setbacks.” From its perusal it does appear that stipulation has been made that on all the sides through which road passes, front set backs are required to be left, in case of corner/double frontage/ tandem sites. Since the word ‘all’ has been used it is being interpreted by the CBI that front set back should have been left over on northern side on which side land of Plot no.1735 situate which has been recorded as road in municipal record. Admittedly, the building in question does have double frontage as on the eastern as well as western side road passes. At both the sides front set back has been left out. Now the question does arise as to whether on the northern side towards which plot no.1735 situates one is required to leave the front set back? It be stated that the aforesaid note concerns with the pots having characteristic of sites of corner, double frontage and tandem. It does not contemplate of the site having more than double frontage. In that event, the word ‘all’ appearing in the said provision could mean both in the context of site having double frontage. If the intention would have been there to leave front set back on all the sides through which road passes, the site having more than double frontage would have incorporated in the said note but conspicuously it is not there. In that event, if the building does have double frontage, front set backs are required to be left at both the sides which are presently there in the building in question. In these events, if the petitioners are allowed to be prosecuted it would be a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the order dated 25.10.2011 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken is hereby quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed.” Arguments on behalf of the Respondent No.3 (RMC) 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC) has submitted that dispute is with respect to Plot No. 1735 under Mauza Chadri, Pargana Khukra within Ranchi Town which was never settled to the vendors of the petitioner [legal heirs of Babu Khitish Chandra Ghosh] by the unregistered Hukumnama dated 17.04.1912 issued by Babu Kali Shanker Sahay & others. It is submitted that the said Hukumnama dated 17.04.1912 does not mention the area of the land of M.S. Plot No. 1735 and as such even the vendor of petitioner who purchased the lands in question does not possess right, title and possession of lands of M.S. Plot No. 1735. It is further submitted that plot no. 1735 was shown recorded as road and drainage in the Municipal Survey of the year 1928 and it is a property of RMC and the same has always been in the use of road by general public and has been used as a drainage of the locality in question. It has further been submitted that the sale deed dated 17.05.2002 by virtue of which the petitioner is claiming his right, title, interest and possession is with respect to the land measuring 0.425 Acres under Plot no. 1736, which is not in dispute, whereas the area under plot no. 1735 measuring 0.281 acres has been shown as drainage and road in the said sale deed and, therefore, the same was never sold to the petitioner by his vendor. Therefore, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 3, the order passed by the appellate court of Additional Collector, Ranchi is in accordance with law. 9. It has further been submitted on behalf of the Respondent no.3 that petitioner have had an occasion to file writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4163 of 2003 with respect to the lands of M.S. Plot No. 1735 and M.S Plot No. 1736. However, the learned writ Court rejected the instant writ petition vide order dated 10.03.2004 by observing that the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to title and possession over plot no. 1735 is of purely civil nature based on disputed question of fact which can be decided only in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Against the said order of writ court LPA No. 294 of 2004 was preferred by the petitioner, which was also rejected vide order dated 12.05.2005. Against the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid LPA No. 294 of 2004, petitioner preferred SLP (Civil) No. CC-9270 of 2005 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4163 of 2003 and LPA No. 294 of 2004. Against the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid LPA No. 294 of 2004, petitioner preferred SLP (Civil) No. CC-9270 of 2005 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4163 of 2003 and LPA No. 294 of 2004. Thereafter the petitioner preferred the Title Suit No. 112 of 2006, in pursuance of the direction given in W.P.(C) No. 4163 of 2003 and the said Title Suit No. 112 of 2006 is still pending in the Civil Court. Therefore, when the said title suit is pending before the civil court of competent jurisdiction, there was no occasion for the petitioner to file the instant writ petition, which is fit to be dismissed. Arguments on behalf of the State (Resp. Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5) 10. Learned counsel for the State appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2,4, and 5 submits that dispute is with respect to the plot no. 1735 and there is no dispute with respect to the lands of M.S. Plot No. 1736, although the petitioner is claiming right, title, interest and possession over the lands of both M.S. Plot Nos. 1735 and 1736 by virtue of the sale deed No. 5056 dated 17.05.2002 which was executed by the legal heirs of Shri K.C. Ghosh in favour of the petitioner, but from the perusal of sale deed it appears that the lands of M.S. Plot No. 1735 has been shown as boundary of land of M.S. Plot No. 1736, which is shown in the Municipal Records as road and drainage and therefore, right, title and interest could not have been legally transferred to the petitioner with respect to M.S. Plot No. 1735, although the petitioner is claiming right, title and interest over M.S. Plot No. 1735 along with M.S. No. 1736 by virtue of the said sale deed dated 17.05.2002 and the Vendor of the petitioner acquired the right, title, possession and interest over the lands of property of M.S. Plot No. 1736 only vide Title Suit being Title Suit No. 57 of 1957 of which judgment and decree has been confirmed from Hon’ble Supreme Court also in favour of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted on behalf of State that during the course of pending of Rent Fixation Case No. 171 of 2003-04/ 20 of 2003-04, the Amin and Karamchari submitted separate reports on 18.12.2002 that Plot No. 1736 was enclosed in a boundary and that Plot No. 1735 was vacant but used by trekkers for parking. The Revenue Karamchari quoted the report of the Amin and stated on 01.03.2003 that the applicant was the occupant of Plot No. 1736 having an area of 13 Katha 9 Chhatak and Plot No. 1735 having an area of 13 Khatta 7 Chhataks. Thus, he recommended the rent fixation of 40 Khattas of land @ Rs.4/- per Kattha. The LRDC, Sadar, Ranchi in his order dated 17.05.2003 accepted the recommendation and ordered the fixation of rent of the land in question ignoring the fact that petitioner had neither title nor possession over plot no. 1735. The entry in Municipal Khatian with regard to Plot No. 1735 stands as Municipality as owner and occupier with a description drainage in road. The entry made in Khatian obviously shows that the nature of land in “Sarak Mai Nali”. Even in the Amin’s report dated 18.10.2002 showed Plot No. 1735 in the form of road being used as parking of trekkers. As such the rent fixation order of the LRDC, Ranchi is bad in law. Further, it is submitted that vendor of the petitioner has got right, title, interest over the M.S. Plot No. 1736, which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and not with respect to the land pertaining to M.S. Plot No. 1735 and in the sale deed dated 17.05.2002 of M.S. Plot no. 1735 is mentioned as a road and drainage and not about the ownership of the petitioner. Appraisal 11. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the lower court records. 12. Gist of the facts emerging from the contentions of the parties is that the dispute is with respect to the lands of MS Plot No. 1735. 1735 is mentioned as a road and drainage and not about the ownership of the petitioner. Appraisal 11. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the lower court records. 12. Gist of the facts emerging from the contentions of the parties is that the dispute is with respect to the lands of MS Plot No. 1735. The claim of the petitioner is that he has purchased the lands of both MS Plot No. 1735 and 1736 by virtue of the sale deed dated 17th May 2002 from the vendors who had acquired the right, title, possession and interest over the lands of both MS Plot No. 1735 and 1736 by virtue of a tested Hukumnama in favour of the vendor of the petitioner vide judgment dated 19th December 1959 passed by the learned Special Judge Ranchi in Title Suit No. 57 of 1957 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is an undisputed fact. Further claim of the petitioner is that the aforesaid sale deed dated 17th May 2002 comprised both MS Plot No. 1735 and 1736 executed in favour of the petitioner by the legal heirs of the late Khitish Chandra Ghosh and lands of both these plot were duly mutated in the name of the petitioner in Rent Fixation Case No. 171 of 2003-04/ 20 of 2003-04 dated 17th May 2003 (Annexure 6) and the relevant portion of the order dated 17th May 2003 passed by the learned Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector Ranchi in the said Rent Fixation Case No. 171 of 2003- 04/ 20 of 2003-04 with respect to MS Plot No. 1735 and 1736 on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 17th May 2002 has been reproduced hereunder: 13. Further it has been pointed out that pursuant to the order dated 17th May 2003 an order of correction/zamabandi was issued and after necessary correction in the zamabandi petitioner was giving the rent to the State of Jharkhand and rent receipt was granted (Annexure 7 and 8). Further it has been pointed out that pursuant to the order dated 17th May 2003 an order of correction/zamabandi was issued and after necessary correction in the zamabandi petitioner was giving the rent to the State of Jharkhand and rent receipt was granted (Annexure 7 and 8). Further it has also been pointed out that the lands of both MS Plot No. 1735 and 1736 was the subject matter of this sale deed dated 17th May 2002 but due to some ulterior motive the confusion was created by the Respondent No. 3 and therefore the vendors of the sale deed dated 17.05.2002 have sworn on affidavit that the entire land including road and drainage inside MS Plot No. 1735 and 1736 have been sold to the petitioner by the sale deed dated 17th May 2002 i.e., Annexure 9 in order to remove the confusion with regard to right, title, interest and possession of the entire suit land contained in Plot No. 1735 and 1736 belonging to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 17th May 2002 which is based on the judgment of the Title Suit no. 57/1957 of which the judgment has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of the Hukumnama dated 17th April 1912 which was executed in favour of the ancestor of the vendor and further it has been pointed out that from the sale deed itself it is clear that the lands of MS Plot No. 1736 including the lands of Plot No. 1735 over which the road and drainage has been indicated, but despite all these facts the respondent no. 3 had been interfereing with the peaceful possession of the petitioner with respect to MS Plot No. 1735 in unauthorized manner. The petitioner have had an opportunity to come before this Court on earlier occasion vide WP(C) No. 4163 of 2003 where under the circumstances of the case, this court by the order dated 10th March 2004 disposed of the said WP (C) No. 4163 of 2003 with the following observations: “In the present writ application the prayer of the petition is for issue of an appropriate writ directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful right, title, interest and possession of the petitioner with respect to Municipal Survey Plot nos. 1735 and 1736 which according to the petitioner the respondent Municipal Corporation is unauthorisedly interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over plot no. 1735. No doubt the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioner was declared and confirmed up to the Supreme Court over the aforesaid plot no. 1736 but in the present case the dispute is only with regard to right, title, interest and possession over plot no. 1735 which according to the respondents the said plot no. 1735 has been recorded in the Municipal records as road and drain. According to the petitioner the said plot, Le. 1735 was also acquired by their vendors by virtue of the Hukumnama dated 17/04/1912. It is stated that though no plot number was mentioned in the said Hukumnama but their vendors acquired the land by virtue of the said Hukumnama with specific boundaries mentioned therein and this plot no. 1735 falls within the boundary mentioned in the said Hukumnama. It is further stated by the petitioner that plot no. 1735 has also been mutated in their name after they purchased the said plot by virtue of registered sale deed dated 17/05/2002 alongwith plot no. 1736. It is stated by the petitioners that they have constructed boundary walls and room over the said plot no. 1735 but the respondent Corporation by use of force started demolishing the construction made by them on the ground of alleged encroachment and then the present writ application was filed, in which an interim order was passed on 04/09/2003 that during the pendency of the writ application, the respondents shall not evict the petitioner from Municipal Survey Plot Nos. 1735 and 1736 except by an order of a competent Court of law/or competent authority. The sale deed dated 17/05/2002, which has been annexed as Annexure-F to the Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation from which it appears that the total area purchased by the petitioner was measuring 0.425 acres of land and the plot no. which has been mentioned in the schedule of the property No. 1736 alongwith road and drainage standing on MS Plot No. 1735. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by them and submitted that in the Municipal record the total area of plot no. 1736 has been recorded as 0.425 acres whereas the area of plot no. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by them and submitted that in the Municipal record the total area of plot no. 1736 has been recorded as 0.425 acres whereas the area of plot no. 1735, which has been recorded as road and drain and the area mentioned is 0.281 acres and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim more than the area which he has purchased by the sale deed, therefore it is clear that the petitioners purchased only plot no. 1736 total area of which is 0.425 acres. He further submits that the writ application is based on purely disputed question of fact which cannot be decided or gone into by this court in its writ jurisdiction and further that the dispute is a purely of a civil nature and therefore, it can be decided only by a competent court of Civil jurisdiction. It is a settled law that the power of the High Court to issue writ under article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised for twofold purpose viz, the enforcement of (a) fundamental rights, as well as of (b) non- fundamental or ordinary legal rights. It is also a settled law that no writ under article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued to decide the dispute of purely civil nature. Without going on the merit of the claim of the petitioners and the rival contention of the respondents, I am of the opinion that the dispute raised by the petitioners with regard to title and possession over plot no. 1735 is of purely civil nature based on disputed question of fact which in my opinion cannot be decided by this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is only the civil court of competent jurisdiction, which can decide the issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ application. In view of the discussion and findings above, this writ application is dismissed.” 14. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Writ Court in WP(C) No. 4163 of 2003 vide judgment dated 10th March 2004, the petitioner filed a title suit in the Court of a Sub-Judge VI, Ranchi vide Title Suit No. 112 of 2006. 15. In view of the discussion and findings above, this writ application is dismissed.” 14. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Writ Court in WP(C) No. 4163 of 2003 vide judgment dated 10th March 2004, the petitioner filed a title suit in the Court of a Sub-Judge VI, Ranchi vide Title Suit No. 112 of 2006. 15. Despite instituting the T.S. No. 112 of 2006 in pursuance of direction Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand passed in W.P.(C) No. 4163 of 2003 on 10.03.2004, the lower appellate court i.e. the court of learned Additional Collector Ranchi entertained the appeal against the order of leaned court of LRDC, Ranchi passed in Rent Fixation Case No. 171/02-03/20/03-04 on 17.05.2003 and passed the impugned order dated 02.07.2008 in Rent Fixation Appeal Case No. 09 R15/07-08 while the appeal was time barred by about 3 ½ years and the impugned order has been passed ex-parte behind the back of petitioner without condoning the delay of about 4 years in the filing the appeal and that too, after institution of T.S, No. 112 of 2006. In the said Title Suit No. 112 of 2006, the Respondent no.3 (Ranchi Municipal Corporation) is one of the defendants and an injunction petition was filed by the petitioner and the learned court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and show cause filed by the defendants of the title suit passed injunction order in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 29th January 2011 and the operative part of the order is as under: “Therefore by restraining the defendant no. 1 from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property till disposal of the suit.” 16. Further, it is also manifest from the pleadings that despite of the fact that the said Title Suit No. 112 of 2006 is pending before the court of learned Sub Judge-VI, Ranchi, the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi passed the impugned order dated 02nd July 2008 in Rent Fixation Appeal No. 09 R 15/2007-08 without proper application of mind. The operative portion of the said order dated 02nd July 2008 in the Rent Fixation Appeal No. 09 R 15/2007-08 is as under: The revenue karamchari quoted the report of amin and stated on 1.5.2003 that the appellant was the occupant of 1736 having an area of 13k.9ch. and 1735 having an area of 13k. 7 ch. The operative portion of the said order dated 02nd July 2008 in the Rent Fixation Appeal No. 09 R 15/2007-08 is as under: The revenue karamchari quoted the report of amin and stated on 1.5.2003 that the appellant was the occupant of 1736 having an area of 13k.9ch. and 1735 having an area of 13k. 7 ch. Thus he recommended the rent fixation of 40 kathas of land @ Rs. 4 per katha. The DCLR, Ranchi Sadar in his order dated 17.5.2003 accepted the recommendation and ordered the fixation of rent for both 1735 and 1736 ignoring the fact that the applicant had neither title nor possession over Plot No1735. The entry in Municipal Khatian with regard to Plot No. 1735 is as follows: The above stated entry in khatian obviously shows that the nature of land is "Sarak Mai Nali". Even in the amin's report dated 18.10.2002 showed Plot No. 1735 in the form of road being used as parking of trekkers and more importantly outside the boundary of the respondent. As such the rent fixation order of the LRDC, Ranchi cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The rent of a road and drain cannot be fixed for any individual. More importantly, the Supreme Court had not adjudicated on Plot No. 1735 and as such the decision of the Apex Court quoted in the orders of the Circle Officer, Ranchi Town and DCLR, Ranchi, Sadar is misconceived and wrong. In fact the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court had no application on Municipal Plot No. 1735. 17. In view of the aforesaid claims and counter claims of the parties vis-a-vis orders passed by various courts from time to time, it is evident that the learned Court of Additional Collector in passing the order dated 2nd July 2008 in Rent Fixation Appeal No. 09 R 15/2007-08 has committed gross error of law as well as fact. 18. The impugned order dated 02.07.2008 has been passed ex-parte behind the back of the petitioner in Rent Fixation Appeal 09 R15/07-08 which was hopelessly time barred and the delay of about 3 ½ years was not even condoned. 18. The impugned order dated 02.07.2008 has been passed ex-parte behind the back of the petitioner in Rent Fixation Appeal 09 R15/07-08 which was hopelessly time barred and the delay of about 3 ½ years was not even condoned. Further from the impugned order it appears that a Title Suit No. 112 of 2006 with respect to inter alia, subject property is pending in the concerned court of Civil Court, Ranchi where the Respondent No.3 is one of the defendants and this Title Suit No. 112 of 2006 has been filed in the year 2006 and further an injunction order dated 29.01.2011 has also been passed in favour of petitioner with respect to suit property, but the learned court of Additional Collector in passing the impugned order dated order dated 2nd July 2008 in Rent Fixation Appeal No. 09 R 15/2007-08 did not take into account that title suit no. 112 of 2006 filed by the petitioner where one of the prayers, inter alia for the issuance of rent receipt and also for the declaration of right, title and possession of MS Plot No. 1735, therefore there was no occasion for the Court of learned Additional Collector, Ranchi to pass any adverse order behind the back of the petitioner and that too taking into consideration belated appeal. 19. In the backdrop, the impugned order dated 02nd July 2008 does not hold good in law and therefore the order dated 02nd July 2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Rent Fixation Appeal No. 09 R15/07-08 is hereby quashed and the order passed in Rent Fixation Case No. 171/02-03/20/03-04 by Land Reforms Deputy Collector dated 17th May 2003 is sustained. 20. It is made clear that this Court’s order will not cause any prejudice to the Court concerned in the disposal of the Title Suit no. 112 of 2006. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently I.A. No.4902 of 2015 also stands disposed of.