Shambhu Prasad @ Shambhu Pd.Ku v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22413 of 2011 ====================================================== Shambhu Prasad @ Shambhu Pd. Kushwaha S/O Late Ramakant Bhagat @ Ramakant Pd. Kushwaha Resident Of Village- Kahiuri Purab Tola, P.OKhajuri, P.S- Kuchai Kote, Distt- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar.

2. The Collector Gopalganj.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj.

4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gopalganj.

5. Circle Officer Kuchai Ko, Distt.- Gopalganj.

6. The Chairman Bihar Bhoodan Yagya Committee Bihar At Patna.

7. Mantri District Bhoodan Yagya Committee Office Gopalganj, Distt. Gopalganj.

8. The Supervisor Of Bihar Bhoodan Yagya Committee Gopalganj, Office, Distt. Gopalganj.

9. Rameshwar Pd.Kushwaha, S/O Ram Ayodhya Pd. Kushwaha, Resident Of Village- Khujuri Purab Tola, P.O- Khaijuri, P.S- Kuchai Kote, Distt.- Gopalganj.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastwa For the Respondent/s : Ms. Alka Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Alka Verma, learned counsel for the respondent /Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee.

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the respondents to grant Form 5 and Form 10 for remaining 3 decimal land situated in Khajuri Purab Tola, Gopalganj. It is not in dispute that earlier 5 decimal of land was

Patna High Court CWJC No.22413 of 2011 (4) dt.10-07-2015 2/2 already settled in favour of the father of the petitioner. In this case a stand has been taken in the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2 to 5 that the petitioner wants 2.5 decimal more land which is 'rasta' for the private respondent.

In view of the fact that earlier land was already settled in the name of the father of the petitioner, the court is of the opinion that there is no need to pass any positive order in favour of the writ petitioner.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U