IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2684 of 2010 JHAKKAR SAH S/O LATE NARAYAN SAH R/O VILL.- MACHCHARGAWAN, P.S.- JOGOPATTI, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN . …….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE D.M. WEST CHAMPARAN ( BETTIAH ) 3. THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE L.R.D.C. WEST CHAMPARAN ( BETTIAH ) 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER WEST CHAMPARAN ( BETTIAH ) 6. SMT. LALITA DEVI W/O LATE SANKAR DAYAL SINGH VILL.- MACHCHARGAWAN, P.S.- JOGOPATTI, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Binod Prasad Singh & Bharat Bhushan, Advocates. For the State : Mrs. Juli Kumari, A.C. to S.C. III --------- 02/ 22.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the District Magistrate, West Champaran to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure 4) for evicting respondent no.6 Smt. Lalita Devi from the land in question and for putting the petitioner in possession thereof. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands appertaining to khata no. 29 (plots no. 36, 473 & 2) and khata no. 36 (plot no. 321), measuring 1 katha 15 kathas 2 dhurs, situated within Mauja Machchargawan and Dhanjadwa within the district of West Champaran belonged to his father, who mortgaged the same to the predecessor of respondent no.6 for Rs.100.00, but thereafter predecessor of respondent no.6 refused to take mortgage money of 2 Rs.100.00 and to hand over Rehanama to the petitioner and continued in possession thereof. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed petitions before the Revenue authorities, namely, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, the District Magistrate as well as before the Commissioner, whereafter respondent no.6 also came up to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6917 of 2002, where she failed. It is also stated that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation before the District Magistrate on 12.11.2009 (Annexure 4), but the District Magistrate is not paying heed to his request nor he is disposing of the said representation. 4. From the above facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the dispute is with regard to mortgage and its redemption and as such the authorities cannot take any appropriate action in this regard, rather the jurisdiction is of the civil court, which can decide the aforesaid dispute which is involved in this writ. Furthermore, vide order dated 02.07.2002 this Court dismissed C.W.J.C. No. 6917 of 2002 only on the ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner in that case (respondent no.6 of the instant case) made vague and generalized submission that the impugned order was bad in law without making any effort to substantiate the same. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the civil court for the reliefs claimed by him. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )