Surendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Revenue And Land Reform

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.959 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1088 of 2024 ====================================================== Surendra Ram Son of Late Mobha Ram, Resident of Village-Baniyachapar, P.O.-Rampur, Daud, District-Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

Dr. Pradeep Kumar, The Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj. 3.

Manibhushan Kumar, The Circle Officer, Kuchaikote, Gopalganj. 4.

Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee, Gopalganj.

5.

Prahlad Ram, son of Late Bhikhari Ram, resident of Village-Banipur, P.S.- Kuchaikote, District-Gopalganj.

6.

Arjun Ram, Son of Late Bhikhari Ram, resident of Village-Banipur, P.S.- Kuchaikote, District-Gopalganj.

7.

Virendra Yadav, son of Late Naga Chaudhary, resident of Village-Banipur, P.S.-Kuchaikote, District-Gopalganj.

8.

Shambhu Pandey, son of Late Sharda Pandey, resident of Village-Banipur, P.S.-Kuchaikote, District-Gopalganj.

9.

Vijay Ram, Son of Jagarnath Ram, resident of Village-Banipur, P.S.- Kuchaikote, District-Gopalganj.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vyas Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar, AC to Ex. G.A.09 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard the parties.

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

(i) for initiation of contempt proceeding against the contemnors/opposite parties particularly opposite party no.-3 who have willfully and deliberately violated the order of this Hon'ble court vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed in CWJC No. 1088 of

2/4 2024 by this Court.

3. Pursuant to the last order, the affidavit has come on behalf of the Circle Officer, Kuchaikote, Gopalganj, according to which, the Circle Officer once again took pains and the entire land was re-measured. The facts have been narrated in paragraph nos. 10 to 14 which read as follows:

10. That it is submitted that during the Course of measurement of Land one of the boundary man namely Sambhu Pandey has stated that Title Suit no.

412/2019 is pending regarding the title of the Land in question before the competent Civil Court against the present petitioner.

11. That offer the measurement of the Land a field memorandum was prepared at the spot on which the Villagers, Anchal Amins. Circle Inspector, Kuchaikote has made their signatures but the petitioner has refused to make signature upon held memorandum.

3/4

12. That it is humbly Submitted that the Circle Officer, Kuchaikote again sent a notice dated 02.04.2026 Vide Memo No. 1011 dated 08.04.2026 to the petitioner and other persons concerned with the Land in-question to be present on 10.04.2026 at the spot for enquiry and measurement of the Land appertaining to plot no. 174 khata no.. 30 Area 16 decimal in Mauza Baniya Chhaper Anchal Kuchaikote District-Gopalganj and the notice was duty served upon the petitioner and others on 09.04.2026.

13. That the Land in question was enquired into by the Circle Officer, Kuchalkote in presence of the petitioner on 10.04.2026 and other Villagers, Anchal Amin and Circle Inspector and the Anchal Amin has again got measurement of the Land which was identified by the petitioner

4/4 in three peaces, but the petitioner was not found in possession of the Land.

The Anchal Amin has submitted his report dated 11.04.2026 along with trace map.

14. That after measurement of Land a field Memorandum was prepared at the spot on which the petitioner has refused to make his Signature although the Villagers and Anchal Amin, Halka Karamchari, Circle Inspector and Circle Officer has made Signature on the field memorandum at the spot.

4. This Court is convinced that the order passed in the writ Court is complied.

5. The petitioner, if aggrieved, can very well take recourse to appropriate Court by filing a proper petition.

6. The MJC No. 959 of 2025 is disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U