Ramchandra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12513 of 2016 ====================================================== Ramchandra Mahto son of Late Beeran Mahto Resident of Village and P.O. Lhanpur P.S. - Khanpur, District - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Samastipur District Samastipur. 3.

Maheshwar Prasad Singh son of Late Bachha Prasad Singh resident of village - Shokohara, P.S. Teghara, District - Begusarai, At present village P.O. - Besua, P.S. Vijaypur, District Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State :

None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-07-2025 Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no representation on behalf of the State.

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

"for quashing the order dated 05.01.2016 passed in Land Dispute Case No.

438 of 2014 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Samastipur (respondent no.2) by which Respondent no.2 held that petitioner is in illegal possession over Khesra No. 1480 (old), 3295(new) situated at Village-Khanpur, Thana No. 210, Pergana-Kasma, District-Samastipur."

Patna High Court CWJC No.12513 of 2016(2) dt.22-07-2025 2/2

3. A counter affidavit of the respondent no.1 and 2 after service of copy upon the learned counsel for the petitioner and as per the paragraph 11, the petitioner ought to have prefer appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be filing an appropriate petition but there has been delay.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and the contents of the counter affidavit, it is observed that if the petitioner prefer a petition within a period of next four weeks, the concerned authority shall see to it and take it to its logical conclusion and consider that the petition shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the matter was pending before the Patna High Court since long.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U