Raghubir Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17385 of 2017 ====================================================== Raghubir Chaudhary Son of Late Devi Lal Chaudhary, Resident of VillageChandauli, P.S.-Tajpur, District-Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3.

The Collector, Samastipur 4.

Additional Collector, Samastipur 5.

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Samastipur 6.

Anchal Adhikari, Pusa, Samastipur 7.

Circle Inspector, Pusa, Samastipur 8.

Revenue Karmachri, Pusa, Samastipur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 17-06-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State is present.

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

(i) For quashing the order contained in Memo No.-2447/रा0 dated-09.12.2013 (Annexure-6) passed by the Collector, Samastipur whereby he rejected the petitioner's application applied for allotment of land in terms of policy decision of the State Government.

(ii) For directing the respondent authorities for allotting the land to the petition in terms of policy decision of the State Government circulated vide

Patna High Court CWJC No.17385 of 2017(2) dt.17-06-2025 2/2 letter no.-A/GM-1-1163-1947R dated-23.03.1963 (Annexure-1).

(iii) For any other relief/reliefs to the petitioner accordance with law.

3. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.6, the Circle Officer, Pusa, Samastipur in on record and the learned State counsel has taken this Court to paragraph no.17 which records that the petitioner owns two acres of agriculture land beside twelve and half decimal of residential land and in that background, the Collector, Samastipur rejected his petition for grant of land which has now been challenged.

4. The stand of the State Government is fully justified and if the petitioner owns the land as also residential building, the Collector was fully justified in rejecting his petition, the counter affidavit was served upon the petitioner in the year 2018 without any rebuttal.

5. However, since there is no appearance, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U