IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13366 of 2007 SMT.GEETA DEVI d/o Ghuteshwar Prasad Sah, resident of Mohalla-Tilak Manjhi, P.S.-Kotwali(Tilka Manjhi), District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms,Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Settlement Commission of India, New Delhi. 3. The State of Bihar. 4. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner-cum- Additional Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar. 5. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 6. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 7. The District Registrar/Sub Registrar, Bhagalpur. 8. The Addl. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 9. The Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur. 10. The Anchal Adhikari, Jagdishpur Municipal Corporation, Bhagalpur. 11. Jamuna Prasad s/o late Madan Mistry, resident of Mohalla- Kotwali Chowk, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur. 12. Prahlad Pahuja s/o late Arjun Singh Sindhi, r/o Indira Nagar ‘B’ Block, Lucknow. 13. Nand Lal Pahuja s/o late Arjun Singh Sindhi r/o Ardali Bazar,Varanasi (U.P.). 14. Chandu Pahuja s/o late Arjun Singh Sindhi r/o Castains Town, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar (Jharkhand). 15. Sri Parsuram Mal s/o late Khumbmal, r/o Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh. 16. Sri Laxman Das @ Sri Birbhadra Das s/o late Gulmal r/o Tilda,District- Raipur, Chhatisgarh. 17. Sri Mohan Das s/o late Paru Singh, r/0 Rajnand Gaon, P.S and District- Rajnandgaon,Chhatisgarh. 18. Sadanand Singh s/o late Ram Lagan Singh, r/o Mohalla- Tilka Manjhi, P.S. Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Md. Najmul Hoda. For the respondents : Mr. Chakrapani and Mr. Purushottam Kr. Jha. For the State : A.A.G.-3 For Union of India : A.C. to Assistant S.G. 7 19.3.2010 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the State and the Union of India . 2 As pleadings are complete , with the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard for disposal at this stage itself. The whole dispute centres around as to whether the property in dispute is a part of what was declared evacuee property or is beyond that . The salient facts may be noted hereunder: At Bhagalpur, there was a Muslim family, which held extensive land in the town of Bhagalpur. One of the members of the family, on the eve of partition of India, moved to Pakistan. A dispute arose as to what part of this family property would be evacuee property. That was ultimately decided in Claim Case nos. 24 to 24C and Claim Case nos. 61 of 53 appertaining to Proceeding No. 36 of 1952 and proceeding No. 61 of 1953 by the competent officer, Bihar under the provisions of The Evacuee Interest (Separation)Act, 1951. The matter was ultimately decided by the Sub- Judge, Patna, who was the competent officer and the cases were: Moinuddin Khan and others –Vrs- Custodian of Evacuee Properties of Bihar and Dora Majeed and others –Vrs- Custodian of Evacuee Properties of Bihar. Pursuant to orders passed therein the properties of the family were partitioned and a part thereof admeasuring about 0.89 acres, as per Schedule was held to be evacuee property and thus not property belonging to the family. The petitioner is said to have purchased 10 decimals of land in the same plot as evacuee property. The dispute basically is where are the two pieces of lands and whether they overlapped or are separate and distinct. Petitioner ultimately traces the ownership of her land to 3 one of the family members of the said Muslim family. In the writ petition, what is submitted is that right from 1952 ,the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner has been coming in possession of that 10 decimals of land. Recently, there started dispute with regard to possession. Petitioner came to know that sometime in 1971, by an amendment in the sale certificate issued by Custodian of Evacuee property, some changes in the boundary were allegedly made, which adversely affects her possession and hence she filed this writ petition. While doing so, she has admitted that even earlier her predecessor-in-interest had instituted a Suit against one Jamuna Prasad in respect of the same very land objecting to entry in favour of Jamuna Prasad. The said Suit is Title Suit No. 256 of 1996 and is pending before Sub Judge, Bhagalpur. The plaint whereof is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Here it may be necessary to point out that Jamuna Prasad is none else then an alleged purchaser of the said evacuee property, whose purchase has been recently cancelled by the competent authority and that decision has not been interferred by this Court in CWJC No.8465 of 2008, which was disposed of by order dated 11.3.2010 wherein private- respondents of the present writ petition have been held to be the true owners and settllees of the evacuee property. Thus, it would be apparent that Sri Vijay Kumar Sah, who is the plaintiff in the Suit, is the predecessor- in-interest of the writ petitioner of the present writ petition and Jamuna Prasad, the sole defendant is the person, whom the private respondents have replaced in respect of the same very property. The 4 Schedule of the plaint would show that the property, in question is the property, which the present writ petitioner has purchased in full. Thus, in my view, dispute, if any, with regard to right, title and possession is squarely before a Civil Court and it is, in my view, open to the writ petitioner to step into the said litigation and get the differences and dispute resolved once for all. The writ remedy is not the proper remedy in this regard. Petitioner may also approach Additional Custodian and Additional Settlement Commissioner-cum- Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Bihar in the department of Revenue and Land Reforms for necessary clarification whether the property falls within evacuee property or not by filing her objection in accordance with law but surely this Writ Court cannot be made a forum for settlement of such a dispute or petitioner may take such other steps, which she may be advised. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)