IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1018 of 2008 Devendra Thakur son of late Ram Chandra Thakur, resident of Durgapatti, P.S. Madhwapur, District – Madhubani ……………. Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Collector, Madhubani, District – Madhubani 3. Additional Collector, Madhubani, District – Madhubani 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Benipatti, District – Madhubani 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Benipatti, District – Madhubani 6. The Circle Officer, Madhwapur, District – Madhubani 7. The District Fisheries Officer, Madhubani, District – Madhubani ………………Respondents For the Appellant: Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. R.S. Dwivedi Mr. L.L.Pandey Mr. R.K.Dubey, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, JC to AAG - III ----------- 2/ 20-01-2009 IA. No.7663 of 2008 This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed. We have taken up the appeal on merit. Writ petitioner – appellant aggrieved by the order dated 13th February, 2008 passed in CWJC. No.671 of 2006 has preferred this appeal under Clause -10 of the - 2 - Letters Patent. Mr. S. S. Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the appellant. State is represented by the Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General – III. Writ petitioner – appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed writ application impugning the order dated 25th November, 2005 passed by the Collector, Madhubani, in which he had negatived the claim of the petitioner over plot nos.6780 & 6781 in Mauza Basuki Bihari in the District of Madhubani. The petitioner contended that the aforesaid land is a raiyati land belonging to him and this claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents and their plea was that it is sairat (pond) which had vested in the State in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Claim and rival claims were made before the learned Single Judge. Taking into account the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge observed that it is not a fit case in which this question can be effectively adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While doing so, the learned - 3 - Single Judge observed as follows: “The crucial question in fact which can be gone into effectively by a Civil Court is as to whether the land being claimed by the petitioner to be raiyati land was ever raiyati land or in fact a sairat (pond) which had vested in the State in terms of the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act. Such disputed question of facts as with regard to the title, possession including the character of land cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner therefore in order to get his right, title and possession of land in question would be required to file a civil suit.” Mr. Dwivedi submits that while relegating the petitioner to the remedy of civil suit, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed for settlement of sairat. The learned Single Judge has found that it is being done by the State for more than thirty years and in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not err in giving that direction. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/- C. K. Prasad, ACJ. S. K. Sharma, J. - 4 -