Raj Kumar Pathak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5213 of 2022 ====================================================== 1.

Raj Kumar Pathak son of Sri Yugal Kishore Pathak resident of Village- Mau, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya 2.

Rewati Kant Pathak son of Sri Yugal Kishore Pathak resident of VillageMau, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Additional Collector-cum- Additional District Magistrate, Gaya 3.

The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Tekari, District- Gaya 4.

The Anchaladhikari, Tekari Anchal, District- Gaya 5.

Prem Ranjan son of Late Ashok Kumar Mishra, resident of Village- Mau, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya 6.

Ravi Kant Pathak son of Sri Yugal Kishore Pathak, resident of Village- Mau, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhola Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam ( Aag 12 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 6.3.2022, passed by respondent no.2 in Mutation Revision Case No.02/21-22 (annexure 3) by which he has confirmed order dated 24.3.2021, passed by respondent no.3 in Mutation Appeal No. 03/M/19-20 (annexure 2).

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners have got statutory alternative remedy before

Patna High Court CWJC No.5213 of 2022(2) dt.22-11-2023 2/2 the Bihar Land Tribunal under section 9 of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 as such, without exhausting the alternative remedy, no writ shall lie.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law.

5. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction.

6. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction and observation that petitioners shall have liberty to move before the appropriate authority within a period of 6 weeks from today.

7. It goes without saying that if any question of limitation arises before the competent authority, the same shall be considered, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were pursuing the issue before this Court. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U