IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5554 of 2010 1. Krit Narayan Choudhary S/O Mod Narayan Choudhary R/O New Bigrahpur Bus Stand, Behind Raghunath Market, P.S.- Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Patna 3. The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Patna 4. The Station House Officer Jakkanpur Police Station, Distt.- Patna 5. Shree Teke Narayan Rai S/O Late Soerda Rai R/O Mohalla- New Bigrahpur Bus Stand, Behind Raghunath Market, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna 6. Ram Sahdi Rai S/O Late Soerda Rai R/O Mohalla- New Bigrahpur Bus Stand, Behind Raghunath Market, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna 7. Sunil Kumar Son And Legal Heirs Of Lal Babu Rai R/O Mohalla- New Bigrahpur Bus Stand, Behind Raghunath Market, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna 8. Binod Kumar Rai Son And Legal Heirs Of Lal Babu Rai R/O Mohalla- New Bigrahpur Bus Stand, Behind Raghunath Market, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna ----------- 2 18.07.2011 Heard Mr. B.J.Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Anjum Praveen, learned A.C. to S.C.3 for the State. The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the private respondent to remove the encroachment over the land bearing Tauzi No. 132, Thana No. 22, Khata No. 3 Plot No. 87 situated at Mauza Bigrahpur, P.S. Phulwari Sharif, District-Patna . It is stated that whereas the other land owners have left 5 ft. area of land for easy passage and the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were required to leave 6 ft. under the sale deed which has been placed at Annexure-3, the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in violation of their undertaking have instead encroached over their 6 ft. area of land and are running their Khatal over their part of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by reason of the said encroachment there is serious obstruction in the common 2 passage. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is manifest that the grievance raised by the petitioner is in the nature of a private dispute running between him and the private respondent as regarding easementary rights. The petitioner in fact is complaining of obstruction of his right of passage. There is no gainsaying that the grievance raised by the petitioner prima facie appears genuine but considering the limits to the exercise of jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner would have to take recourse to Civil Law Remedies. The writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before an appropriate Forum by filing an appropriate application and which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)