Arjun Sao v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18788 of 2017 ====================================================== Arjun Sao Son of late Ruplal Sao, Resident of Village-Chamotha, P.S. Sirdala, P.O.-Lound, District-Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The District Magistrate, Nawada.

3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawada.

4.

The Deputy Land Development Officer, Sirdalla 5.

The Block Development Officer, Rajauli, Dist. Nawada. 6.

The Circle Officer, Sirdalla, Nawada.

7.

Lakshminia Devi Wife of Birju Vishawkarma, Resident of VillageChamotha, P.S. Sirdala, P.O.-Lound, District-Nawada 8.

Rita Devi Wife of Ajit Verma, Resident of Village-Chamotha, P.S. Sirdala, P.O.- Lound, District- Nawada ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 24-06-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for following relief(s):- "(i) For directing and commanding the respondent authorities to make direction to comply of the speaking order dt. 16.10.2014 in B.L.T. Appeal case no.

184/2011 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh, Gaya in favour of the petitioner only direction to disposed of petitioner's representation within time framed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18788 of 2017(2) dt.24-06-2025 2/2 Whereby and whereunder it was decided by the learned court and after demarcation of land in Napi Case No. 68/2016-17 in which the report submitted by Anchal Amine before the Circle Officer, Sirdala it appears respondents forcibly taken petitioner land and any other relief and reliefs as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

3. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that it is a proper dispute between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 7 and 8 and the proper course of action should have been to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawada/Competent Civil Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be approaching the appropriate authority of the Court in next four weeks for settling the matter.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ranjeet/- U