IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16728 of 2009 RAM AUTAR RAI, Son of late Jitan Rai, resident of Village- Babhnaulia, Police Station- Turkaulia, District- East Champaran :---- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, East Champaran, At & P.O- East Champaran. 3. The Additional Collector, East Champaran At & P.O. East Champaran. 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Turkaulia At & P.O. Turkaulia, District- East Champaran. 5. Jotik Mahra, Son of late Bhabheehan Mahra, resident of Village- Babhnaulia, Police Station- Turkaulia, District- East Champaran :--- Respondents. ----------- 2. 03.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari in Misc. Case No. 57 of 1989, Annexure-4, whereunder the learned Collector has refused to recognize the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner for the lands- in-question by the disciple of Rameshwar Bhagat, the recorded tenant of Tauji No. 951, Village- Babhnauni, P.S. Motihari, now Turkaulia, contained in Annexure-1 to this application although the said disciple after the demise of Rameshwar Bhagat succeeded over his interest. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid order is absolutely without jurisdiction as the learned Collector had no authority to direct delivery of possession in favour of Jotik Mahra who claims settlement of the lands-in-question in the year 1970-71 and dispossession in the year 1989. It is further submitted that possession of the person dispossessed can only be restored through the competent Civil Court. 4. Learned counsel for the State in reply submitted that perusal of the order of the learned Collector would indicate that petitioner could not establish before the learned Collector that vendor of the petitioner - 2 - was the disciple of Rameshwar Bhagat who succeeded to his interest and in appreciation of such fact this Court should not interfere in the matter. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that petitioner in order to maintain his possession over the lands-in-question should establish that his vendor was the disciple of the recorded tenant Rameshwar Bhagat who after the demise of Rameshwar Bhagat succeeded to the landed property of Rameshwar Bhagat. Such finding can only be recorded by the competent Civil Court. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and request the court to consider his case for grant of injunction until disposal of the suit finally. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)