IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5509 of 2008 1. Jagdish Singh, son of Late Bheng Raj Singh 2. Raj Kumar Singh, son of Late Mahabir Singh both are resident of village-Kanhauli, P.S.-Khajauli, District-Madhubani. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Secretary, Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna, 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga, 4. The Collector, Madhubani, 5. The Additional Collector, Madhubani, 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhubani, 7. The land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhubani, 8. The Circle Officer, Khajauli, Madhubani. ----------- 3. 01.07.2011 After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration in his favour with regard to right, title and possession. This Court on the basis of the pleadings and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner does find that he has been able to make an arguable case in his favour but in view of the nature of the controversy and too many contested facts, this Court feels that such disputed and highly contested factual aspects cannot be appropriately considered and decided in the present proceedings specially under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the State who has filed 2 counter also takes a similar defence showing that the writ petitioner is not remedyless and has an equally efficacious alternative remedy. In view of the aforesaid position and prayer of the petitioner for moving before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the declaration of his rights for the land in question, this Court disposes off the writ petition with the aforesaid liberty. Further it is necessary to observe that the petitioner shall have fuil liberty to agitate his claim and also take every plea available to him which has been taken in this writ petition or which may be taken by him otherwise. He shall also be at liberty to produce all his evidence before the said Court. The said Court shall not be prejudiced by the fact that this Court at this stage did not interfere in the matter. The Court below shall also not be influenced by any order passed by the Revenue Authorities and shall take an independent decision without any encumbrance or limitation. The petitioner is also at liberty to file an appropriate petition for injunction in the proceedings which may be initiated by him so that his interest in the meantime is protected. 3 The petitioner claims that he is still in possession and no precipitative action has been taken by the respondent authorities to dispossess them. Learned counsel for the State is not readily in a position to verify the same. However, if the petitioner moves before the Court of competent jurisdiction within one month from today and files an injunction petition the Court below shall be obliged to decide the same within two weeks thereafter upon hearing the parties and pass appropriate order. Since this Court is relegating the petitioner to the alternate forum, and if it is true that no coercive action has been taken against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that within six weeks the injunction matter has to be mandatorily decided by the Court below, the State authority would be well advised not to take any drastic action which may appear to be taken with malafide intention only for the purposes of defeating the case of the petition. With the aforesaid observations and liberty the writ petition stands disposed off. Amit ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. )