Bibhuti Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1889 of 2024 ====================================================== Bibhuti Thakur Son of Late Adyanath Thakur Resident of Mishraulia, P.s. Babubarhi, District-Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary revenue and Land Reforms Department Government of Biahr, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate Cum Collector Madhubani. 3.

The Aditional Collector Land Reforms Madhubani. 4.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Madhubani.

5.

The Circle Officer Babubarhi Madhubani 6.

Sri Pradeep Sahu Son of Late Baldeo Sahu Resident of Mishraulia, P.S. Babubarhi, District-Madhubani.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate Mr. Abhinay, Advocate Ms. Udeshya Kr. Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, AC to SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 14-05-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief/s:- "That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), direction(s) for quashing the 08.08.2023 passed in 4 (GO order(s), order dated appeal no. 27/2011-12 by the learned court of Collector Madhubani whereby and whereunder the learned collector was pleased dismissed the abovesaid appeal setting aside order dated 15.06.2011 passed in 4 (G) Misc case no. 70/86-87 declaring the pond

Patna High Court CWJC No.1889 of 2024(2) dt.14-05-2024 2/2 question of Bihar Government and was also pleased to reject the claim of petitioner and to grant further for quashing the order dated 15.06.2011 passed in 4 (G) Misc. case no. 70/86-87 and to grant any other relief (s) for which petitioner may found entitled in accordance with law."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he had a case for which, he directly approached the Court, he do understand that the alternate remedy by way of revision is available. However, now the delay may come into question.

4. Taking into account the aforesaid submission, if the petitioner prefers revision before the appropriate authority within four weeks, the concerned authority/Court shall see to it that the writ petition was filed and the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before the Patna High Court while considering his limitation petition.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U