Ram Sakal Bind @ Ram Sakal Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17083 of 2017 ====================================================== Ram Sakal Bind @ Ram Sakal Prasad Son of Bishundeo Bind Resident of Village-Jhikatia, P.S.-Goh, District-Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Commissioner, Magadh Pramandal, Gaya.

3.

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

4.

The Addl. Collector, Aurangabad.

5.

The D.C.L.R. Daud Nagar, Aurangabad.

6.

The C.O. Goah, Aurangabad.

7.

Smt. Chinta Devi Wife of Jai Prakash Bind Resident of Village-Jhikatia P.O.-Rukundi P.S.-Goah, District-Aurangabad.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kedar Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sajid Salim Khan -Sc25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 06-05-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) for issuance of appropriate writ or writs or order or orders or direction or directions to the Circle Officer (Respondent no.06) to not mutate the disputed land in the name of Respondent no.7 namely Chinta Devi W/o Jai Prakash Bind which has been illegally purchased the ancestor land from her father-in-law by the petitioner has been debarred to get the share in the ancestor property.

Patna High Court CWJC No.17083 of 2017(2) dt.06-05-2025 2/2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the mutation of the land has been done by the Circle Officer, Goh, Aurangabad in favour of the respondent no.7 on 15.06.2022.

4. Learned State Counsel as also respondent no.7 submit that in that background, he has to approach the Appellate Authority for the redressal of the grievance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be approaching the authority concerned but the delay in filing may be prejudiced to him.

6. The writ petition was pending here and during the pendency, the order in question has come. There is no supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents bringing the same on record and it is only due to the presence of the respondent no.7 that the fact has come to the knowledge of the Court, in that background, the petitioner prefers appeal within four weeks from today, the delay in filing the appeal shall be condoned by the concerned Appellate Authority.

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U