IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5036 of 2010 1. Md.Manzoor Alam S/O Sidhique Hussain, R/O Village - Maheshwa , P.S Rautara , District- Katihari. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector ,Katihar. Null Null 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Null Katihar 4. District Bhoodan Yogya Officer, Null Katihar. 5. Deputy Collector , Land Reforms ,Katihar 6. The Circle Officer, Korha,Katihar 7. The Officer In Charge, Rautara, P.S - Katihar ----------- 2 14.07.2011 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned A.C. to G.P.22 for the State. The writ petition questions illegal action of the certain persons on a land bearing Khata No. 333 Plot No. 651 having an area of 2.46 acres situated at Mauza Maheshwa, Circle Korha, District- Katihar, belonging to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plot in question had been settled in favour of the grand father of the petitioner by the Bhoodan Yagya Committee. He submits that by mistake the said plot was mutated in name of another person. On an application filed by the respondent No.4 the Bhoodan Yagya Committee, the mistake was rectified under an order dated 4.06.2003 passed in Bhoodan case No. 8 of 2001-02 placed at Annexure-1 of the writ petition. He submits that pursuant to the said settlement the petitioner was also paying the rent and evidence of which is available at Annexure-2. It is contended that as the plot in question was illegally occupied and in possession of certain persons hence the petitioner had approached the Circle Officer, Korha for demarcation of the plot and 2 for restoration of his possession. In a report given by the Circle Inspector dated 2.01.2009 addressed to the Circle Officer, Korha placed at Annexure-3 the position has been admitted and it is stated that the plot in question is under the occupation of certain persons named in the report. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admits to this position and submits that the said encroachers had also sought remedy before the Civil Court at Katihar but the title suit got dismissed for non prosecution and thus submits that despite the title being in favour of the petitioner over the land in question he is deprived of its enjoyment. Be that as it may, since it is an admitted position that the plot in question is in illegal occupation and possession of certain encroachers as mentioned in the report of the Circle Inspector as present at Annexure-3, this Court is of the opinion that the remedy for the petitioner lies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)