Patna High CourtCWJC/9157/1995disposed

Bishwanath Yadav And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-04-09Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9157 of 1995 ===========================================================

1. Bishwanath Yadav

2. Kishnath Yadav

3. Sita Ram Yadav All sons of Mangal Yadav, residents of Village Dihi Pakri Tola Malahi, Police Station- Thakarahan, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur.

3. The Additional Collector, West Champaran, at Bettiah.

4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bagha, District West Champaran.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagha, District West Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, G.A. 10 Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to G.A. 10.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-04-2015 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners.

On 11.07.2014, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

The petitioners' claim that the land in question situated in village Dihipakri, Anchal Thakrahan, District- West Champaran, was settled with them by ex-landlord U.P. Sugar Mills Company Limited in the year 1950. However, the said settlement was doubted by the Revenue authorities right from the D.C.L.R. up to Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Settlement Case No. 24/77-78, Revenue Appeal No. 107/78-79 and Case No. 139 Misc./80-81.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9157 of 1995 dt.09-04-2015 2 / 2 The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 31.03.1995, passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division (respondent no.2) in Case No. 139 Misc./80-81, affirming the order of Additional Collector, West Champaran (respondent no. 3) in Revenue Appeal No. 107/78-79, which in turn affirmed the order dated 22.08.1977, passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and Sub-Divisional Officer approving alleged settlement in favour of the petitioners. Counsel for the State submits that both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have given substantial reasons for holding that the settlement of the petitioners was not genuine, rather it was fake one.

The petitioners however, if so advised, may approach the civil court for redressal of their grievances. This application stands disposed of.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) Uday/- U