Barhu Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4897 of 2012 ====================================================== Barhu Singh, S/O Late Gorakh Singh, Resident of Village Pagara, P.S. Vijayipur, District Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar.

2. The Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra.

4. The Collector Gopalganj, District Gopalganj.

5. The Additional Collector, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj.

6. The Deputy Collector, In Charge Land Reforms, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj.

7. Ram Sagar Sah S/O Beni Sah Resident Of Village Pagara, Police Station Vijayipur, District Gopalganj.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nityanand Mishra For the Respondent nos.1to6 : Mr. S.A. Alam, SC-3 Mr.Mahtab Alam, AC to SC-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-09-2015 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2011 passed in Land Ceiling Revision No.140 of 2008 by the respondent Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra, as contained in Annexure-8, whereby the aforesaid revision case filed on behalf of the respondent no.7 has been allowed and, after setting aside the order dated 06.03.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Gopalganj, the matter has been remanded back to the respondent Additional Collector, Gopalganj with a direction to decide the dispute between the parties afresh after making local inspection.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that, in view of the aforesaid order of remand, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.4897 of 2012 (3) dt.21-09-2015 matter was heard by the respondent Additional Collector, Gopalganj and even order has been reserved, but it has not been finally decided till date.

In view of the fact that by the impugned revisional order, the matter has been remanded back to the appellate authority and actually the matter has been heard by the appellate authority i.e. the Additional Collector and the order has been reserved, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner himself, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the Additional Collector decides the matter afresh and that goes against the petitioner, then he shall be at liberty to challenge that order before the appropriate forum/court.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U