IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14751 of 2009 1. RAM MANOHAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE BAIDHYANATH PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- ANKURI, P.S.- PALIGANJ, DIST.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY & COMMISSIONER, LAND REFORMS & REVENUE DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALIGANJ, DIST.- PATNA 5. CIRCLE OFFICER PALIGANJ, DIST.- PATNA 6. B.D.O. PALIGANJ, DIST.- PATNA 7. JUNIOR ENGINEER PALIGANJ, DIST.- PATNA 8. RAJU DAS MUKHIYA SARSI PIPERDAHA GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILL.- PIPERDAHA, P.S.- PALIGANJ, DIST.- PATNA 9. MAHESH YADAV PANCHAYAT SECRETARY SARSI PIPERDAHA, VILL.- PIPERDAHA, P.S.- PALIGANJ, DIST.- PATNA ----------- 02 18.12.2009 The petitioner alleges that on his raiyati land at Mauza-Sarsi Pipardaha at the instance of Mukhiya, Sarsi Pipardaha Gram Panchayat unauthorizedly a drain has been made. There has been no acquisition of land and that land is a private raiyati land of the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed for removal thereof. Heard the parties. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is not the proper remedy, because as per the pleadings itself, the drain was constructed even though assuming unauthorizedly as far back as in November, 2008, petitioner - 2 - merely made a representation to the Sub- Divisional Officer and filed a case under Section 144 Cr.P.C. 0n 25.11.2008 by when drain had already been constructed and waited what happened to that case is anybody’s guess. Now, after one year the writ petition is filed for removal of the public drain. In my view, the proper remedy for the petitioner now is to move the Civil Court and establish his right and seek relief in law that he is entitled to. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is dismissed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)