← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/275/2025disposed

Lappu Das v. The State Of Bihar Through The Addl. Chief Secretary-Cum-Principal Secretary

2026-01-16Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.275 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1639 of 2024 ====================================================== Lappu Das Son of Mithu Das, Resident of village - Mohammadpur, P.O. - Alinagar P.S.- Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary-cum-Principal Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, namely Shri Deepak Kumar Singh.

2.

Mithilesh Mishra, The Collector, Lakhisarai.

3.

Sudhanshu Shekhar, The Addl. Collector, Lakhisarai. 4.

Smt. Situ Sharma, The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Lakhisarai. 5.

Swantatra Kumar, The Circle Officer Suryagarha, 6.

Dinesh Singh, Mohammadpur, P.O. Alinaga P.S. Suryagarh, DistrictLakhisarai. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramakant Ram, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Additional Advocate General 9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present application has been preferred: against the order dated 10.05.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. Mr. 1639/2024 passed by this Court and direction was given to the Collector, Lakhisarai with proper petition showing him as landless person the concerned Respondent shall taken up the matter and disposed it of within period of six months thereafter.

3. The stand of the State is that the petitioner

Patna High Court MJC No.275 of 2025(5) dt.16-01-2026 2/2 possesses residential building and he is not entitled for settlement of any piece of land.

4. This Court wanted an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner specifically stating that the said statement of the State is incorrect inasmuch as he does not own a single piece of land.

5. Though a reply has come, the said statement is missing.

6. In that background, this Court is of the opinion that no contempt is made out. The petitioner, if so want, can agitate the matter before appropriate authority but this case cannot be taken up further.

7. MJC No. 275 of 2025 stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U