Sukindar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3258 of 2025 ====================================================== Sukindar Paswan Son of Shree Chand Paswan Resident of Village- Ekdanga, P.S.- Belchhi, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Additional Director General of Police (Weaker Section) Bihar, Patna. 4.
The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Patna. 5.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
6.
The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Patna.
7.
The Sub Divisional Officer, Barh, District- Patna. 8.
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bar, District-Patna. 9.
The Circle Officer, Barh, District Patna.
10.
The S.H.O., Belchhi Police Station, District Patna. 11.
Dr. Satyendra Singh, Son of Late Ram Deo Singh, Resident of VillageEkdanga, P.S.- Belchhi, District- Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Braj Bhushan Mishra For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Standing Counsel (11) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-03-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for following relief:- "For issuance of a directions for removing encroachment from the part of the land bearing Khata No. 35 Plot Nos. 178 and 179(Old) Plot No. 410 and 409(new), Area 5 Kattha situated under Mauza-Belchhi, P.S. + Circle + Block- Barh, Tauzi No. 398/1 C Thana No. 280, District-Patna which has been illegally and forcefully
Patna High Court CWJC No.3258 of 2025(2) dt.04-03-2025 2/2 encroached/occupied by the private Respondent No. 11.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that part of his raiyati land has been encroached by respondent no. 11 and the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer is not paying heed to be representation made by the petitioner.
4. It appears that ultimate remedy lies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
5. This writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U