Alok Kumar Pandey, J.—In the instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:— “(i) For direction the Respondents to create new jamabandi in the name of the petitioners with regard to the agriculture land pertaining to Thana no 143, khata no 249, khesra no 22,, Mauza Dekpura area 113.5 decimal in which by jamabandi no 104 new jamabandi has been created only 0.87. 7/8 decimal land, khata no 250, khesra no 7 area 38.00 decimal land khata no 254, khera no 8 area 25.00 decimal, khata no 250 khesra no 6 area 21.75 decimal, khata no 254, khesra no. 20 area 3.25 decimal land on the basis of legal and valid registered sale deed dated 04 02 11 executed by sole land owner namely mosmat Sharmeela Devi wife of late Ghanshyam singh in favour of the petitioners. (ii) For direction the respondents to correct/modify the jamabandi no 783 with regard to 261.5 decimal land in place of 206.5 decimal because due to mistake of the Revenue Karmachari in place of 261.5 decimal land 206.5 decimal land has been mentioned in jamabandi no 783. (iii) For direction the respondents to reduce 1/3 land from jamabandi no 781 and create jamabandi in name of the petitioners because the petitioners have purchased 1/3 share land by registered sale deed. (iv) For direction the respondents to modify and reduce the land with regard to khata no. 159 from jamabandi no. 781 which has wrongly been reduced from jamabandi no. 783. (v) For other order/direction in the interest of justice and ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners through the rejoinder has submitted that petitioner has only one grievance that 1.13 acre land may be added in Jamabandi No. 1335(ka). Referring to the order dated 29.11.2022 of the D.C.L.R., Biharsharif, as contained in Annexure-P/8, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that specific order has been given by D.C.L.R. Biharsharif to the Circle Officer, Rahui, Nalanda that 1.13 acre by added in Jamabandi No. 1335(ka). 3. Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit. Regarding letter dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure-P/8) of the D.C.L.R., Biharsharif, learned counsel for the State submits that since the counter affidavit was filed in the year 2022, and hence, there is no specific reply on the said score. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit. Regarding letter dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure-P/8) of the D.C.L.R., Biharsharif, learned counsel for the State submits that since the counter affidavit was filed in the year 2022, and hence, there is no specific reply on the said score. 4. From perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the present writ petition is pending consideration for the last six years and in the writ petition, no specific relief has been sought against any specific authority. Petitioners have approached different forums for redressal of the grievance. On one hand petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court, on the other hand they have approached the D.C.L.R., Biharsharif for redressal of the grievance as is evident from Anenxure-P/8, during pendency of the present writ petition. 5. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable as petitioners have already approached different forum for redressal of the same grievance during pendency of the present writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 6. However, the dismissal of the writ petition would not be a hurdle for the petitioners to approach the concerned authority in the light of the order passed by the D.C.L.R., Biharsharif and the concerned authority is directed to take appropriate action within a reasonable period.