Ajit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8689 of 2025 ====================================================== Ajit Kumar Singh S/o Late Suresh Prasad Singh, Resident of VillageKhetalpura, P.S. - Sare, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Nalanda, Biharsharif. 2.

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biharsharif.

3.

The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Biharsharif. 4.

The Circle Officer, Asthawan, District- Nalanda. 5.

The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, Biharsharif. 6.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Biharsharif. 7.

The S.H.O. Sare, Police Station, District- Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Government Advocate (10) :

Mr. Parmendra Kumar Singh, AC to GA-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-05-2026 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

"(i) for issuance of appropriate direction, order, writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of the representation as contained in annexure-1 of this writ application by restraining the respondent no.-4 and respondent no.-7 from illegally and unlawfully interfering and forcing the petitioner to stop construction over his land bearing Khata No.- 279, Khesara No. 1910, total area- 3

Patna High Court CWJC No.8689 of 2025(2) dt.04-05-2026 2/2 dismal, Thana No. 239, Mauza Khetalpura, Circle Office-Asthawan, P.S.- Sare, DistrictNalanda until or unless he will give nazarana for doing construction over it.

(ii) for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled to, in the fact and the circumstances of this case."

3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be approaching the Revenue/Administrative side/court by filing a fresh representation.

4. Learned State counsel has no objection.

5. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation that if such petition is preferred in four weeks after noticing/hearing the parties, the respondent authorities are duty bound to take the matter to its logical conclusion, at an earliest.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U