IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1852 of 2010 1. RAJESH KUMAR S/O LATE SARYU PRASAD R/O VILL.- JATPUR, P.O.- JANAKPUR ROAD, DISTT.- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SITAMARHI 3. NETLAL RAI S/O LATE SIYALAL RAI R/O VILL. AND P.O.- CHAINPUR, P.S.- PUPARI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI ----------- 2. 05.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. On the own showing of the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pupari (Sitamarhi) on 18.9.2009, held that he was in possession of the lands in question. The petitioner does not disclose in Paragraph-13, the date of dispossession. If it was subsequent to the aforesaid order, quite obviously, the petitioner has adequate remedies under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. apart from such other remedy he may be advised in law against respondent no. 3, before the competent authority. The dispute being purely private in nature, there is no occasion for the writ Court to interfere in the matter. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)