Rekha Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11511 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Rekha Devi wife of Late Narayan Prasad Sah 2.

Raj Kumar Sah 3.

Suraj Kumar Sah 4.

Pawan Kumar Sah 2 to 4 sons of Late Narayan Sah Resident of village Basudevpur, P.S. Barhara Kothi, District Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.

3.

The District Magistrate, Purnea.

4.

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Damdaha, Purnea. 5.

Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha, Purnea.

6.

The Circle Officer, Barhara Kothi, District Purnea. 7.

Anchal Amin Dhamdaha, Purnea.

8.

Mritunjay Kumar alias Munna son of Late Tara Chand Bhagat resident of village Basudeopur, P.S. Barhara Kothi, District Purnea. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.R.K. Roy- Gp18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 29-04-2024 Heard the parties.

2. I.A. No. 6896 of 2018:

3. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application has been preferred for incorporating the additional prayer dated 25.6.2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Purnea in Miscellaneous Cae No. 88/2/17-18 (State of Bihar Vs. Rakhi Devi @ Rekha Devi (the petitioner herein).

4. There is no opposition from the other side.

5. The I.A. No. 6896 of 2018 is allowed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11511 of 2017(3) dt.29-04-2024 2/2 C.W.J.C. No. 11511 of 2017:

It has been informed by Mr. Waliur Raham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.8 that an important fact which has been suppressed by the petitioner before this Court is that he has preferred Title Suit No. 04 of 2019 before the learned Sub-Judge, Dhamdaha, Purnea on 11.1.2019 and a perusal of the paragraph-1 would show that the details of the land incorporated therein is similar to what has been incorporated in para-3 of the writ petition.

2. It is unfortunate that a Title Suit has been preferred five years ago and the said fact has not been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner.

3. Let the copy of the petition of Title Suit No. 04 of 2019 provided by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.8 duly signed by the petitioner (and submitted before the concerned Court) be kept on record.

4. The writ petition stands dismissed for suppressing material facts as the Title Suit already pending where the petitioner and the respondent no.8 are pursuing the matter. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U