IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4944 of 2010 1. Sia Sharan Singh S/O Late Jairam Singh R/O Vill.- Salempur, P.S. Hulasganj, Distt.- Jehanabad Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Range, Gaya 3. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad 4. The Circle Officer, Hulasganj, Jehanabad 5. The Block Development Officer, Hulasganj, Jehanabad 6. The Engineer In Chief, Department Of Minor Irrigation Bihar, Patna 7.The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Jehanabad Division, Jehanabad 8. Navin Kumar S/O Not Known To The Petitioner R/O Vill.- Bharthu, P.S. Ghosi, Distt.- Jehanabad ----------- 5 11.08.2011 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Sinha, learned A.C. to G.P.4 for the State. The writ petition was filed objecting to the construction of a Pokhar by the respondent authorities of the State of Bihar on a piece of land bearing Khata No. 190(old) Plot No. 867(old) measuring 2 acres and 25 decimals situated at village Salempur, District Jehanabad. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question was settled with the grand father of the petitioner as back as on 15.10.1943 and that a deed of settlement has also been executed by the landlady, Rani Bhuneshwari Kuer. The deed is said to be in Kaithi. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by vesting of the intermediary rights under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the ancestors of the petitioner being the settlee by the ex-landlord continued to hold possession of land in question and have been paying rent and obtaining receipt thereof. He submits that the respondents encroaching upon the land settled with 2 the grand father of the petitioner as back as in 15.10.1943 have started construction of the Pokhar thus affecting his title and possession. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is stated that the entire papers on which the petitioner is placing reliance are forged and fabricated. It is further submitted that the Gairmajarua land over which the Pokhar has constructed for irrigation of the agricultural field was never in possession of the petitioner and the story of settlement is not correct. It is next submitted that the work of Pokhar having already been completed during pendency of the writ petition. The writ petition has become infructuous by passage of time. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the materials available on the records of the proceeding, it is manifest that the petitioner claims title and possession over land bearing Khata No. 190 Plot No. 867 measuring 2.25 acres on the basis of a Hukumnama executed by the ex-landlady Rani Bhuneshwari Kuer of Tekari Raj, as back as on 15.10.1943 and claims to have continued in possession over the said land and perfected his title over the plots in question. However, as the very issue which was the subject matter of the proceedings has reached its logical conclusion with the completion of the work of Pokhar, no further directions can be issued in this regard in the present proceedings. The writ petitioner if so advised may raise his grievance for declaration of title and restoration of possession over the plot in question by filing an appropriate application before an appropriate 3 Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Needless to add that any such application being filed by the petitioner may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by the Civil Court of the competent jurisdiction after hearing the contesting parties. The writ petition is disposed of. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)