Raja Ram Mistri v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.153 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Raja Ram Mistri Son of Late Ghrit Mistri Resident of Village - Murhara, P.S. Shakurabad, District - Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Jehanabad, District - Jehanabad

2. The Additional Collector, Jehanabad, District - Jehanabad

3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jehanabad, District - Jehanabad

4. The Circle Officer, Kurtha (Ratni Faridpur), District - Jehanabad

5. Lakhan Mistri Son of Late Ram Sevak Mistri Resident of Village - Murhara, P.S. Shakurabad, District - Jehanabad

6. Tetar Mistri Son of Late Ram Sevak Mistri Resident of Village - Murhara, P.S. Shakurabad, District - Jehanabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Mistri, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. D. Dwivedi, SC-23 For the private respondent: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 23-07-2015 Heard Mr. Vinay Mistri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey for the private respondent.

The writ petitioner has sought to question the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Jehanabad in Case No.22/DM of 2007 and 05/SC of 2008-09 whereby the order dated 29.9.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jahanabad in Appeal Case No.5 of 2000-01 has been set aside, thus upholding the order of the Circle Officer passed in Mutation Case no. 10 of 1992-93 whereby the Jamabandi earlier running in the name of the father of the private respondents namely, Ram

Patna High Court CWJC No.153 of 2012 (3) dt.23-07-2015 2/2 Sewak Mistri son of Ram Lal Mistri has been rectified and is presently running in equal half in between the petitioners and the private respondents i.e. the petitioner along with his brothers on one part and the private respondent on the other part with an equal proportionate share of 1.34 acre each. However, when the matter is taken up for consideration that learned counsel for the parties concede for disposal of the writ petition reserving liberty for the party aggrieved to take recourse to the civil law remedy available before the civil court in case any dispute relating to the share in the landed property arises.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U