Judgment 1. Present petition has been preferred against the construction of a "Dharmshala" in plot no. 672 and the petitioner wants stay against the construction of the "Dharmshala" at the aforesaid premises on the ground that the land, in question, is a disputed land and the petitioner is in possession of the land, which was given by one Shri Kishun Shah. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is claiming to be a "Pujarin" at Babua Buturua Nayak Dham, Ganjebari, District Deoghar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the plot no. 672, which was given by one Shri Kishun Shah to the forefathers of the petitioner and the respondents are constructing "Dharmshala" over the same. 3. When this Court raises a query that how the petitioner is claiming the right, title or interest upon plot no.672, where, the construction of "Dharmshala" is going on, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out para 4 of the petition and submitted that the aforesaid plot was given to the grandfather of the petitioner by "Bhudan". Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out how the land, in question, was given by Shri Kishun Shah. Thus, para 4 of the petition shows one thing and the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is another. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to match para 4 with his arguments, but, he has maintained his argument that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the plot and moreover, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction of the "Dharmshala" is going on with brick made out of "Bangla Bhatti" and not of "Chimney Bhatti" and, therefore, the said construction may stop. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent State vehemently submitted that this petition deserves to be dismissed with an exemplary cost. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed and it is further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the land. She is neither in the possession over the land nor the owner of the property in question. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent State that as stated in para 13 of the counter affidavit, the land, in question, was owned by Shri Neju Mian and Shri Teju Mian. She is neither in the possession over the land nor the owner of the property in question. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent State that as stated in para 13 of the counter affidavit, the land, in question, was owned by Shri Neju Mian and Shri Teju Mian. The petitioner's name is not, at all, reflected in the revenue entry. The aforesaid two persons have not raised any objection. The petitioner has no concern with the land, in question. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent State that the petitioner had earlier filed one writ petition bearing W.P. (Cr.) No. 136 of 2006, for establishing her right as "Pujarin" and the aforesaid writ petition, preferred by the present petitioner, was dismissed on the ground that the said writ petition cannot be established in a criminal writ petition, but, it ought to be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. by the Civil Court and civil dispute ought to be raised under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, even the right of petitioner as a "Pujarin" is also in dispute and, therefore, she had filed a writ petition for establishment of such a right in her favour. This type of "Pujarin" is filing a petition for a land, upon which, the construction is going on of a "Dharmshala" over plot no. 672, which is not belonging to the petitioner at all and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reason: (i) It appears that the petitioner has got some objection for some construction going on in plot no. 672,situated at Village Ganjebari, District Deoghar. .(ii) The petitioner is unable to establish any right, title or interest upon the said property. No document has been presented by the petitioner for establishing any right, title or interest. Thus, the petitioner has nothing to do with the said land, upon which, the construction is going on. (iii) The petitioner has raised one more contention that the construction, which is going on in plot no. 672, is by bricks, manufactured by "Bangla Bhatti" and not by "Chimney Bhatti". Thus, the petitioner has nothing to do with the said land, upon which, the construction is going on. (iii) The petitioner has raised one more contention that the construction, which is going on in plot no. 672, is by bricks, manufactured by "Bangla Bhatti" and not by "Chimney Bhatti". The petitioner is unable to point out that under law, which type of bricks are required. This contention is raised just for the sake of raising dispute, without any basis. What is the strength of such bricks, is not known to the petitioner. What are the legal requirements, is not known to the petitioner. What is the difference between "Chimney Bhatti" brick and "Bangla Bhatti" brick, is also not known to the petitioner. (iv) Looking to the counter affidavit, it appears that the land, in question, is not belonging to the petitioner, as per the revenue entry especially looking to para 13 of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents. The land, in question, i.e. plot no. 672 is belonging to Shri Neju Mian and Shri Teju Mian as per the land survey settlement, which is the zamabandi nontransferable land. Thus, the petitioner has nothing to do with the said land. (v) Looking to para 4 of the petition, it is stated that the land, in question, is given to the grandfather of the petitioner by "Bhudan" activities, whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner has orally argued that the land, in question, was given to the forefathers of the petitioner by one Shri Kishun Shah. Thus, there is vast difference in para 4 of the petition and oral arguments, canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, as stated hereinabove, there is not a single revenue entry, referred in the Annexure, which is in the name of the petitioner or in the name of her forefathers. Nothing is matched properly in this petition. No head and tail is matched in this petition. It appears that this petition is filed just for the sake of raising dispute. What is the purpose of filing this petition, is not known to the petitioner. How the petitioner is concerned with the said land, is also not known to the petitioner. Her "Pujariship" is also in dispute as per the other writ petition, as stated hereinabove, order whereof, at Annexure10 to the memo of petition. What is the purpose of filing this petition, is not known to the petitioner. How the petitioner is concerned with the said land, is also not known to the petitioner. Her "Pujariship" is also in dispute as per the other writ petition, as stated hereinabove, order whereof, at Annexure10 to the memo of petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent State that the petitioner appears to be more a builder than a Pujarin. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, this writ petition is, hereby, dismissed with a cost of Rs. 500/(Rupees five hundred only). This amount will be deposited by the petitioner before respondent no. 4, within a period of four weeks from today.