IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1313 of 2010 1. SHASHI KANT PRASAD S/O LATE LALAN PRASAD R/O VILL BANKATWA, P.O AND P.S- BAGAHA, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, WEST-CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 2. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, BAGAHA, WEST-CHAMPARAN 3. ANCHAL ADHIKARI BAGHA-I, WEST CHAMPARAN 4. KANTI DEVI W/O SHRI RAJA RAM PRASAD, D/O VISHWANATH PRASAD, R/O VILL- BANKATWA, P.O AND P.S- BAGAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN 5. UMA DEVI W/O LATE KAILASH PRASAD D/O LATE VISHWANATH PRASAD, R/O VILL- BANKATWA, P.O STATION BAGAHA DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN PRESENT R/O HINDRI BAZAR, SADAR BHATTI MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ----------- 3. 08.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Circle officer, Bagaha-I dated 28.2.1980, whereunder mutation of the lands in-question has been allowed in favour of the father of Private Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Sri Vishwanath Prasad. Aforesaid order has also been affirmed in appeal and revision by the Deputy Collector land Reforms, Bagaha and the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah under orders dated 5.5.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bagaha, Annexure-2 and 12.10.2009 passed by the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, Annexure-3. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Circle Officer received the mutation application filed by Sri Vishwanath Prasad dated 20.12.1979 on 18.2.1980, as is evident from the certified copy of the said application but prior thereto itself the report was submitted by the Halka Karmchari on 28.12.1979 which was approved by the Circle Inspector on 8.2.1980 on the basis of which mutation order was passed on 28.2.1980. It is submitted that the enquiry report was submitted and the mutation order was passed without any notice to the public at large as also to the petitioner. Aforesaid contention was raised by the petitioner before the appellate and the revisional authority but the two authorities did not consider the contention - 2 - raised and noted above which is evident from the certified copy of Annexure- 1. and passed the appellate and revisional orders, Annexures 2 and 3. The aforesaid report and the order-sheet has been maintained by the Circle Officer in connection with Mutation Case No. 1050/1979-80. 4. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the strength of the orders contained in Annexures 1,2 and 3 the private respondents are trying to divest the petitioner of the possession over the lands in-question which they are maintaining on the basis of a 1944 partition between the parties, as is evident from Annexure-4. 5. The dispute over the lands in-question, in my opinion, can be settled by filing a civil suit, in the circumstances, I am not inclined to proceed with the instant writ case, however, I grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and finding recorded in Annexures- 1 to 3 shall be subject to the result of the civil suit. If anybody including private respondents are trying to eject the petitioner from the lands in-question on the basis of the strength of orders contained in Annexures- 1,2 and 3 then it shall be open for the petitioner to request the Civil Court to consider his prayer for grant of interim injunction and with these observations, this writ application is disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)