IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.810 of 2008 ------- Most.Panpati Devi, widow of Late Bindeshwar Prasad, Mohalla- North Mandiri, Police Station- Budha Colony, District- Patna. Petitioner/ Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Patna. 2. Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna 5. Inspector General of Police, Patna Region, Patna. 6. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna Region, Patna 7. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 8. City Superintendent of Police, Patna 9. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Law & Order), Patna. 10. Officer Incharge, Budha Colony, District-Patna 11. Circle Officer, Sadar Patna. 12. Chandrashekhar Prasad, S/0 Sri Ram Prasad Mahto, resident of Mohalla- South Mandiri, Post Office-G.P.O, Police Station- Budha Colony, District-Patna. 13. Kailash Devi, widow of Late Ramvilash Sahani, resident of Mohalla-North Mandiri, Police Station-Budha Colony, District Patna. 14. Akhilesh Kumar, S/0 Late Ramvilash Sahani, resident of Mohalla-North Mandiri, Police Station-Budha Colony, District Patna. 15. Md. Ashique, S/0 Late Noor Mian, resident of Mohalla-North Mandiri, Police Station-Budha Colony, District Patna. 16. Md. Rafique Alam, S/0 Late Noor Mian, resident of Mohalla- North Mandiri, Police Station-Budha Colony, District Patna. 17. Zinat Khatoon, widow of Late Noor Mian, resident of Mohalla- North Mandiri, Police Station-Budha Colony, District Patna. 18. Mallu Gope alias Shyam Babu Yadav, Ex-Ward Councillor, S/0 Late Hitlal Yadav, resident of Mohalla-North Mandiri, Police Station-Budha Colony, District Patna. 19. Digvijay Singh, S/o Ram Babu Yadav, resident of Mohalla- North Mandiri, Police Station-Budha Colony, District Patna. Respondents/ Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr.Indradeo Prasad, Advocate - 2 - For the respondents : Mr. Ranchandra Prasad Bharti, Standing Counsel-XIV M/s. Sailesh Kumar Singh & Aslam ansari, Junior counsel to Standing Counsel XIV ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------- Dated, the 20th October, 2008 We heard the counsel for the appellant. 2. The Single Judge considered the matter thus: “On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the present application before this Court is wholly misconceived. It is evident that the petitioner had purchased the land on 27.6.2005 in which on her own admission as many as four huts were in existence and the respondents were living there with their family members. So far as the nature of the possession or occupation over the land in question is concerned the same cannot be decided in writ proceedings. As a matter of fact, the respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioner and are claiming title on the basis of settlement made in the year 1950. These are not issues which can be dealt with in a writ petition at all. The reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Mani Kant Chaudhary (supra) appears to be totally misconceived. In the said matter the clear finding had been recorded by the Sub-divisional Officer that unlawful and illegal occupants having political patronage have occupied the land of the petitioner of that case and in the said circumstances, this Court had issued the direction to the State authorities to act in terms of the said findings recorded by them and restore the possession to the petitioner. The present matter does not stand at all on the same footing since petitioner has purchased land on which the private respondents were already in occupation, whatever be the nature of the possession. Similarly no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from S.K.Ejaz’s case in which the matter related to forcible - 3 - dispossession of a tenant by a landlord and the observations of the Supreme Court in the said judgment were made in the said context. That is not the position in the present matter. The other submissions of learned counsel regarding distinction between occupation and possession and issue of adverse possession, etc. are not matters which can be looked into in the writ proceeding as they involve the framing of issues and decision on the same on the basis of oral/documentary evidence brought by the parties for which appropriate proceeding would evidently lie elsewhere. The claim of the petitioner that law must protect her cannot stand the scrutiny of the Court since the law must protect all who are in possession until the person concerned is evicted in accordance the process of law.” 3. We fully agree with the view of the Single Judge. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition are not capable of being granted in extra ordinary jurisdiction since it depends upon determination of diverse issues of facts. 4. LPA does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil