Patna High CourtCWJC/8518/2009dismissed

Laxman Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-08-18Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8518 of 2009 ====================================================== Laxman Singh, son of Bihari Singh, resident of village-Bilauti, P.S.- Shahpur, District-Bhojpur at Ara.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. District Collector, Bhojpur, Ara.

3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jagdishpur (Bhojpur).

4. Anchal Adhikari, Bihea, District-Bhojpur (Ara).

5. Deo Chandra Misra.

6. Prem Chandra Mishra Both sons of late Ram Chandra Mishra, resident of village-Nargada, P.S.- Shahpur, District-Bhojpur at Ara.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunath Singh Mr. Kumar Rajeev For the Respondent nos.1to4 : Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-8 Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, AC to GP-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-08-2015 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2009 (Annexure-3) passed in Mutation Revision Case No.15 of 2007-08 by the respondent District Collector, Bhojpur, Ara, whereby the aforesaid revision application filed on behalf of the private respondent nos.5 and 6 has been allowed and the orders passed by the respondent D.C.L.R. and Anchal Adhikari have been set aside.

The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of the land in question from the descendants of one Harish Chandra Mishra. The respondent District Collector has passed the impugned order in the light of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.80 of 1997 by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, in which respondent nos.5 and 6 at one side and the aforesaid Harish Chandra Mishra at the other side were parties.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8518 of 2009 (4) dt.18-08-2015 In view of the fact that the impugned order passed by the respondent District Collector is based on judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U