IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1133 of 2010 MAHENDRA BHAGAT S/O LATE BHUMI BHAGAT R/O VILL. & P.O.- MADHURAPUR, P.S.- BIHPUR (BHAWANIPUR), DISTT.- BHAGALPUR. … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA-1 3. HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA-1 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA-1 5. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 6. POLICE SUPERINTENDENT NAUGACHIA, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 7. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NAUGACHIA 8. OFFICER IN-CHARGE, BHAWANIPUR, P.S.- BHAWANIPUR NAUGACHIA, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 9. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, NARAYANPUR CIRCLE, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 10. ALOK KUMAR S/O LATE KAMESHWAR PRASAD YADAV R/O MADHURAPUR BAZAR, P.S. BHAWANIPUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR … Respondents /Respondents ----------- 3. 01.07.2011 Heard Mr. Vivekanand Vivek for the appellant. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 4420 of 2010, and raises a limited grievance with respect to the order dated 25.5.2010, whereby his writ petition was substantially allowed. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the 2 appellant. The writ petitioner complained in the writ petition that he had been forcibly evicted from his property by respondent no. 10 in collusion with the officer(s) of the local administration. This court felt convinced about the genuineness of the grievance and directed for restoration of possession of his property. As to the prayer for compensation, the learned single Judge observed as follows:- “… Before parting, I may add that petitioner is entitled to compensation for which he may approach any competent forum or Court including Human Rights Commission, if he is so advised.” The appellant submits before us that this Court should itself determine the amount of compensation, instead of relegating the petitioner to other remedies available to him in law. We are of the view that this prayer could have been made before the learned single Judge himself who had issued notice to the respondents and was in seisin of the matter. Entertaining this prayer at this stage in appeal is now difficult for this Court. In that view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere in the matter. However, we reiterate the observations of the 3 learned single Judge. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above observation. kanchan ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)