IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15088 of 2007 RAM BILASH RAM S/o Ghoghan Ram resident of village Dhrubgama P.S.Kalyanpur Dist. Samastipur Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Anchal Adhikari, Kalyanpur, Dist. Samastipur 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Samastipur 4. The Collector and District Magistrate, Samastipur 5. Ram Dular Pandit S/o Janak Pandit 6. Pramod Prasad Singh S/o Late Sukheshwar Singh Respondents 5 and 6 are resident of village Dhrubgama P.S.Kalyanpur Dist. Samastipur Respondents ------------ 2 03.03.2009 Heard Mr Mathura Nath Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Ranjit Sinha, learned Assistant counsel to learned Standing counsel no.10, for respondents no.1 to 4.This writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings, and is directed against the order dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure 4), passed by respondent no.4, whereby he has rejected Mutation Revision no.358/1998 (Ram Bilash Ram vs Ram Dular Pandit & ors), preferred by the present petitioner, and has upheld the orders of the learned authorities below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding before the learned Anchal Adhikari does not inspire confidence, and seems to have been concluded with host haste. He next submits that, in view of the position that Jamabandi was running in his name, individual notice ought to have been served on him. Learned Government Pleader has supported the impugned order. It is with respect to mutation of plots no. 1349, 1350, measuring an area of 2 katha 10 dhurs, appertaining to khata no. 521, Thana no. 57, situate at village Dhurbgama. - 2 - We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that it raises issues relating to right, title and interest which can not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. It needs substantive evidence and can be adjudicated in a civil suit. In fact, the impugned order mentions that respondent no.5 has already instituted a title suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. shahid (S.K.Katriar, J)