Jagdish Mahto And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6885 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.

Jagdish Mahto 2.

Mahesh Mahto, Both sons of Late Ram Swaroop Mahto, resident of villageKabirchak, P.S.- Sadar, District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Darbhanga 3.

Anand Mahto, son of Late Ayodhi Mahto, Resident of village- Kabirchak, P.S.- Sadar, District- Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-3 Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 28-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

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

"(i). For quashing the order dated 30.10.2015 passed in connection with B.L.T.Case No.64 of 2015 by the Hon'ble Member (Administrative), Bihar Land Tribunal, whereby the application preferred against the order dated 6.9.2014, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga in land Disputes Appeal No.291 of 2012-13 was rejected.

(ii). Also for quashing the order dated 6.9.2014 passed in Land Dispute Appeal

Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2016(6) dt.28-02-2024 2/3 No.291 of 2012-13, by the learned Divisional Commissioner Darbhanga whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms Sadar, Darbhanga in Land Dispute Case No.419 of 2011-12 was rejected.

(iii). Also for quashing the order dated 15.6.2012 passed in Land Dispute Case No.419 of 2011-12 by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Darbhanga, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for declaration of their right over the land in question was rejected.

(iv). Also for any other appropriate relief(s) to which the petitioners are found entitled either in the eye of law or in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Though the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court on the merit of the case, having lost before the DCLR as also the Divisional Commissioner and lastly, before the Bihar Land Tribunal and having gone through the facts of the case, this Court does not fit it proper that the petitioners have any case.

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he will be exploring other remedies in the matter.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6885 of 2016(6) dt.28-02-2024 3/3

5. Accordingly, the present writ application is disposed of without any observation.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U