IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.800 of 2009 Jay Narayan Panjiyar son of Late Kapileshwar Panjiyar, resident of village Majhauli Bhonudih Police Station Bhanse Patti, Police Station Runnisaidpur, District-Samastipur. ……………… Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary Rehabilitation Dept. Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitamarhi. 4. Rehabilitation Officer Bagmati Project, Sitamarhi. 5. Block Development Officer/Anchal Adhikari Runnisaidpur, District-Sitamarhi. ………………… Respondents-Respondents. -------- 7 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the present Appeal the appellant has chosen to question the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting his claim with regard to possession of the land in C.W.J.C. No. 10592 of 2008 which was the subject matter of acquisition in the year 1982 itself. The record shows that the appellant’s father had filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No.862 of 1982, seeking to drop the land acquisition proceeding which was dismissed by this Court. The appellant’s father seems to have died later on the appellant’s major son has filed C.W.J.C. No. 10592 of 2008 stating 2 therein that they have constructed houses on the alleged plots i.e. Plot Nos. 55,56 & 63. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition on the ground that the father has already questioned the land acquisition proceeding which has reached finality. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon certain certificate issued by the Circle Officer dated 12.11.2009 to prove his possession. Learned Government Pleader has disputed the above statement of the appellant stating that the possession of 12.095 acres of land had already been taken on 22.6.1983 and it is also fairly conceded that the land still remain undivided till date. It has been further contended that the land of the appellant in the area of 12.095 acres could not be identified. In the background of the above submissions made by learned Government Pleader, we are of the opinion that as the possession of the appellant herein purely a question of fact which cannot be interfered at this stage. In view of above, we do not think it proper, in the interest of justice to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 3 The appellant, if so desire may lead evidence to prove his title over the land in question before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. With the above observations this L.P.A. is disposed of. Bibhash (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Jyoti Saran,J.)