Khushi Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.772 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.1. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar Son of Late Khushi Singh Resident of VillageChhapra Tola, P.S.- Akodhi Gola, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 1.2. Ranjit Kumar Son of Late Khushi Singh Resident of Village- Chhapra Tola, P.S.- Akodhi Gola, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasasram, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 3.

The Additional District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

4.

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dehri, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 5.

The Circle Officer, Akodhi Gola, Block- Akodhi Gola, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

6.

Raju Upadhyay, Son of Late Srikant Upadhyay, resident of Village- Chandi, P.O.- Chandi, P.S.- Akodhi Gola, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 7.

Saroj Upadhyay, Son of Late Sri Kant Upadhyay, resident of VillageChandi, P.O.- Chandi, P.S.- Akodhi Gola, District Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Niraj Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Birendra Prasad Singh, AC to SC 19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-02-2023 Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. The admitted position is that a suit, bearing Title Suit No. 462 of 2003, has been decided in favour of respondent nos. 6 and 7 and a decree has been drawn on 22.08.2009, in which the title upon the subject land has been declared in favour of respondent nos. 6 and 7.

The Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, by the impugned order, dated 06.09.2017, has dismissed the BLT Case No. 1126

Patna High Court CWJC No.772 of 2018(10) dt.08-02-2023 2/2 of 2015, on the ground that the suit is already pending though the suit was decided in the year 2009 itself. In view of the nature of dispute involved in the case regarding mutation and the fact that judgment and decree has been passed in favour of respondent nos. 6 and 7, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √