← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/4945/2011dismissed

Fuleshwar Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-08-02Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4945 of 2011 ====================================================== Fuleshwar Sah, S/O Late Ramfal Sah, Resident Of Village Nirpur, P.S. Chauttam, District Khagaria.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar.

2. The Collector, Khagaria.

3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Khagaria.

4. The Circle Officer, Chautham, Khagaria.

5. Murari Prasad Singh, S/O Late Surendra Nr. Pd. Singh, Resident of Village Chautham, P.S. Chautham, District Khagaria.

6. Shiv Nandan Singh, S/O Late Ram Sundar Pd. Singh, Resident Of Village Chautham, P.S. Chautham, District Khagaria. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan No.-1, Adv. For the Respondent nos.1to4 : Mr. Ram Subhash Singh, AC to AAG-7 For the Respondent no.6 : Mr.Vijay Kumar Bhagat, Adv. Mr.Amlesh Kumar Verma, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2016 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No.1 of 2000-01 by the respondent District Collector, Khagaria, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the aforesaid Bataidari Appeal filed on behalf of the respondent no.6 was allowed and the order dated 09.02.2000 passed by the respondent D.C.L.R., Khagaria in Bataidari Case No.57 of 1981-82, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has been set aside and reversed. Admittedly, the impugned appellate order was passed on 14.11.2000 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He was fully aware about the impugned order passed by the respondent District Collector. He did not challenge the

Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2011 (4) dt.02-08-2016 aforesaid order for quite a long time, but, without any valid explanation for delay, he filed the present writ petition on 15.03.2011.

The present writ petition suffers from delay and laches of more than 10 years on the part of the petitioner; therefore, without going into the merits of the case of the parties, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U