Dilip Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17037 of 2016 ====================================================== Dilip Kumar Yadav Son of Late Baldeo Prasad Yadav, resident of village Kajhi Hridaya Nagar P.S. Banmankhi, District Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar.

2.

The Collector Purnea, District Purnea.

3.

The Sub- Divisional Officer Banmankhi, District- Purnea. 4.

The Circle Officer Banmankhi District Purnea. 5.

Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary Son of Late Laxmi Prasad Choudhary 6.

Pradeep Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Laxmi Prasad Choudhary Both Sl. No. 5 and 6 resident of village Banmankhi Milpatti Ward No.7, P.S. Banmankhi District Purnea.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Roy-GP-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 05-08-2025 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned AC to GP-18.

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

"for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari set aside the entire order dated 1.8.15 to 10.3.2016 passed in Misc. Case no. 01/2015-16 by the Circle Officer Banmankhi Annexed as Annexure-9 treating the same has been passed without following the direction passed by this

Patna High Court CWJC No.17037 of 2016(2) dt.05-08-2025 2/2 Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13749 of 2001 on 12.4.2007 and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to treat the petitioner is a valid purchaser of the land in question and he is legally entitled of the said purchased land."

3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jha submits that the petitioner shall be seeking remedy before the appropriate authority/competent Court.

4. Granting said liberty and if such petition is preferred, the concerned authority/Court shall see to it that the matter was pending before this Court for nine years while dealing with the limitation petition.

5. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U