Rajendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.633 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3466 of 2023 ====================================================== Rajendra Yadav son of Late Dhauli Yadav, Resident of Village-Bariyarpur, P.O.-Shahkund, P.S.-Shahkund, District-Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary namely Mr. Brijesh Mehrotra, the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Mr. Brijesh Mehrotra, the Additional Chief Secretary, the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Mr. Jai Singh, the Secretary, the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Mr. S.M. Qaiser Sultan, the Joint Secretary, the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, the Deputy Secretary, the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6.

Mr. Sanjaya Kumar Sing, the Collector, Bhagalpur, Bihar. 7.

Dr. Nawal Kishor Chaudhary, the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur. 8.

Mr. Anish Kumar, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bhagalpur. 9.

Mr. Nilesh Chaurasiya, the Circle Officer, Shahkund, Bhagalpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel 19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present contempt petition has been filed against the opposite parties for deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 25.07.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3466 of 2023. Counsel submits that the order passed by this Court has not been taken

Patna High Court MJC No.633 of 2024(5) dt.11-03-2026 2/2 into consideration and hence, the opposite parties are under contempt.

3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the order has been passed by the Circle Officer in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. Counsel submits that the order passed by the Circle Officer is annexed as Annexure-B.

4. In the light of the submissions made, it transpires vide Annexure-B that the Circle Officer has passed order and accordingly, communicated to the petitioner in this regard.

5. Hence, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped and the present M.J.C. petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order of the Circle Officer (Annexure-B) before the appropriate forum.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U