IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 3360 of 2008 SHAILESHWAR DHARI SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 17.07.2008 The petitioners claim to be raiyats appertaining to land noted in khata No 102, plot No 553 and khata No 101, plot No 1431 situated at village-Dharhara, Police Station-Paliganj, District-Patna. Earlier, allegedly their possession was threatened by encroachment by the district authorities which brought them to this Court in CWJC No 6324 of 2007 which was disposed of on 23.07.2007 holding that it was difficult for this Court to go into the question of title and left the petitioner to move the Collector of the district who would enquire and pass orders in that regard. It appears, pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioners approached the Collector. While the matter was pending before the Collector, a proceeding was initiated for cancellation of Jamabandi being Case No 1 of 2007-2008 before the Circle Officer, Paliganj. Petitioners were noticed and given opportunity for producing papers in support of their contention that they had been rightly recorded as raiyat in respect of the said land. The Anchal Adhikari ultimately found by his order dated 28.09.2007 that the entries in the Jamabandi were inappropriately done and the petitioners could not establish the rightfulness thereof. He, thus, recommended the matter to the LRDC, Paliganj for cancellation of the Jamabandi. It appears, thereafter, the matter was taken up by the LRDC, Paliganj who, by order dated 03.10.2007, accepted the recommendation and ordered for cancellation 2 of Jamabandi. This order has also been countersigned by the Subdivisional Officer. The petitioners are aggrieved by this order and submit that LRDC and/or the Subdivisional Officer, Paliganj who passed the final orders accepting the recommendation of the Anchal Adhikari did so behind the back of the petitioner and without notice to them. Petitioners were not heard. Thus, it is submitted that the order is in violation of principles of natural justice and must be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. The learned State Counsel has pointed out that in the writ petition itself, the petitioners have pleaded that construction of subdivisional office has been taken up on the said land unauthorisedly. Be that as it may, now it is apparent that the petitioners have been effectively dispossessed and the subdivisional office has been built upon their alleged lands. The proceedings that have been impugned are mere mutation proceedings. Even if any order is passed in favour of the petitioners in these proceedings, that would not amount to conferring title on the petitioners. Ultimately the petitioners would have to seek shelter and relief from a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their right, title and interest in the property. Therefore, in my view, in view of the dispute involved, the remedy of the petitioners lies before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking a declaration of their right, title and interest and for restoration of possession and such other remedy to which they may be advised but certainly in these disputed questions, this Court would not interfere. 3 With these observations, the writ application stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)