Smt. Rinku Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8898 of 2021 ====================================================== Smt. Rinku Devi Wife of Shri Chandra Shekhar Azad, Resident of Village and P.O.-Ark Dhibaria, P.S.-Tikari, District-Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Collector, Gaya. 2.

The Collector, Gaya.

3.

The Circle Officer, Tikari Block, P.S.-Tikari, District-Gaya. 4.

The Municipal Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. 5.

The Chief Munisipal Officer,, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. 6.

The Municipal Executive Officer, Tikari, Municipal Council, P.S.-Tikari, District-Gaya.

7.

The Secretary, Tikari Municipal Council, P.S.-Tikari, District-Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kinkar Kumar (Sc9) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 17-02-2022 This application has been taken up for online hearing through video conference because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

This writ application has been filed seeking direction to the Tekari Nagar Parishad to realise municipal tax of the land/holding of the petitioner bearing Ward No. 10 (new) holding No. 28A area 3.75 decimal.

It is the petitioner's case that though his name has

Patna High Court CWJC No.8898 of 2021(3) dt.17-02-2022 2/2 been mutated in respect of the land in question, the Corporation is not accepting the holding tax on the basis that in R.S. Khatian, the land has been described as Government land. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that co-sharer of the petitioner had filed a Title Suit No. 329/2006/284/2015 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Gaya, which has been decreed in his favour. The petitioner is accordingly seeking the aforesaid direction from this Court in the light of the said decree passed by the court of learned SubJudge VII, Gaya in Title Suit No. 329/2006/284/2015. In our view, this application is completely misconceived. The dispute which the petitioner is attempting to raise in the present writ application, involves pure question of title. We are not inclined to go into the nature of dispute raised by the petitioner.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U