Munshi Ram Dhobi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 908 of 2009 ======================================================

1. Munshi Ram Dhobi, son of Late Guput Dhobi;

2. Surendra Bind, son of Ram Nihor Bind;

3. Jitendra Kumar Dhobi, son of Ram Bachan Dhobi;

4. Birendra Dhobi, son of Munshi Ram Dhobi;

5. Bajrangi Bind, son of Late Bhadar Bind;

All residents of village:- Sadas Pur, Post:- Akorhi, P.S.:- Mohania, District:- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua,

2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mohania, Kaimur at Bhabhua,

4. The Circle Officer, Mohania, Kaimur at Bhabhua, .........Respondents

5. Ramadhin Paswan, son of Ramnath Paswan,

6. Ram Awtar Paswan, son of Ramnath Paswan,

7. Hari Paswan, son of Ramnath Paswan,

8. Radha Mohan Paswan, son of Late Chamaru Paswan,

9. Anirudh Paswan, son of Late Chamaru Paswan, Respondent nos. 5 to 9 are residents of village:- Sadas Pur, Post:- Akorhi, District:- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Kislay For the Respondent/s : AC to GP-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

27-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader - 1.

Five petitioners, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 27-10-2008 passed by the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Land Settlement Appeal Case No. 06 of 2008 (Annexure - 11). By the said order, the learned Collector has rejected the appeal of petitioners only on the ground

Patna High Court CWJC No.908 of 2009 (3) dt.27-04-2015 2/2 of limitation.

On perusal of the materials on record, particularly; Annexure - 7 to the writ petition, it appears that long back on 22-01-1993 certain Government land was settled in favour of private respondents i.e. respondent no. 5 to 9. Though, settlement was made in the year 1993, the petitioners, to the reasons best known to them, had preferred appeal in the year 2008 and the learned appellate court has rejected the appeal on the ground of delay itself.

Fact remains that the Government land was settled in favour of private respondents long back in the year 1993 and as such, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Collector, Bhabhua, whereby the appeal was rejected only on the ground that appeal was preferred after fifteen years. I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay/- U