Sunita Choudhary @ Sunita Chodhri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2890 of 2026 ====================================================== Sunita Choudhary @ Sunita Chodhri Wife of Ajay Choudhari, Resident of village- Motitola, at present Shiv Mandir Tola Parbatta, P.S. and AnchalIsmilepur, District-Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Dept., Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Commissionery, Bhagalpur. 4.

The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhagalpur. 5.

The Deputy Collector cum L.R.D.C. Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. 6.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. 7.

The Circle Officer, Ismilepur, District- Bhagalpur. 8.

The Block Development Officer, Ismilepur, District- Bhagalpur. 9.

Rajesh Kumar Sah @ Rajesh Kumar Sahu, Son of Late Birendra Prasad Sahu, Resident of Village- Sahu Parbatta, P.S.- Parbatta, Anchal- Ismilepur, District-Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Ojha, Advocate Mr. Ved Prakash Chandan, Advocate Mr. Govind Lal Pandit, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.K.K. Singh, AC to GP-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 27-07-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

"(i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting

2/5 aside the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Collector, Bhagalpur in Basgit Parcha Appeal Case No.77 of 2020-21 by which the learned Collector, Bhagalpur has cancelled the Parcha of the petitioner which had been issued to the petitioner on 04.01.2019 by the learned Anchal Adhikari Ismilepur, District-Bhagalpur in Basgit Parcha Case No.12 of 1918-19.

(ii) for issuance of any other writ, order or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The matter relates to a piece of land, the details of which have not even been recorded in the writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the respondent nos. 04 to 08 duly signed by the Circle Officer, Ismilepur, Bhagalpur and paragraph 09 to 12 read as follows: 9.that it is necessary to state here that the petitioner had fraudulently succeeded in getting the Basgit Parcha on 04.01.2019 issued in his name vide Basgit Parcha Case No.

3/5 12/2018-19 by the Circle Officer, Ismilepur by suppressing the relevant facts;

10. that being aggrieved by the aforesaid issuance of Basgit Parcha in favor of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 09 had challenged the said Order by filing Basgit Parcha Appeal Case No. 12/2018-19 before the Collector, Bhagalpur;

11. that it is submitted and stated that the aforesaid Appeal preferred by the petitioner was finally allowed by the Ld. Collector, Bhagalpur vide Order dated 12.12.2024 and the Order passed Ismilepur by the Circle Officer, in Basgit Parcha Case No.

12/2018-19was set aside;

12. that it is further necessary to point out that the petitioner is neither landless person nor below poverty line. The petitioner had purchased 30

4/5 decimal land being part of Plot No.

2118, Khata No. 165 situated in Mauza Parbatta, Thana No. 33 vide registered Sale Deed No. 91 dated 16.01.2017. Apart from this the husband of the petitioner had also purchased 69 decimal land being part of Plot No. 2225, Khata No. 165 situated in Mauza Parbatia, Thana No. 33 vide registered Sale Deed No.

3886dated 31.10.2015.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not seem eligible for Basgiet parcha and accordingly, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur had rightly rejected the Basgit Parcha earlier issued to the petitioner vide Order dated 12.12.2024.

5. The aforesaid paragraph not rebutted clearly shows that the petitioner owns a residential plot and as such cannot be put in the category of landless person. Upon making query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she gave

5/5 information that though she owns residence, still she is a landless person as she do not have agriculture land.

6. Considering the submissions aforesaid and on the finding of the Collector, Bhagalpur, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.

7. This Court refrains from imposing cost upon the petitioner.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U