Rameshwar Pandey And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3837 of 1996 =========================================================== Rameshwar Pandey son of Late Mahangu Pandey village Pakri Misharain, P.O. Bairiya, P.S. Kateya, District Gopalganj at present residing at F-103 P.S. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur

3. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siwan

4. Consolidation Officer, Kateya, P.O. Kateya, Gopalganj

5. Assistant Consolidation Officer, Kateya, P.O. Kateya, Gopalganj

6. Most. Hiramati Wife of Late Ramakant Pandey

7. (1) Most. Nirmala Devi D/o Late Awadhesh Pandey, the daughter in law of Late Ragho Pandey

7. (ii) Panchanand Pandey

7. (iii) Chandra Bhushan Pandey both sons of Late Ragho Pandey all 3 of the resident of village Pakri, Mishrine, P.O. Bairiya, P.S. Kateya, Gopalganj

8. Kailash Pandey son of Late Bikrama Pandey all from sl. 6 to 8 residents of village Pakri Misharain P.O. Bariya, P.S. Kateya, Gopalganj .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma Mr. Raj Narayan Mishra For the Respondents Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-04-2015 Heard Mr. Verma for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha for the respondents.

The application arises out of a consolidation proceeding whereby the right, title and interest over the subject land has been decided. Both the parties agree that serious disputed questions of fact are involved and the matter has been considered and decided in a summary manner The same can be raised before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by the aggrieved party as complicated legal

Patna High Court CWJC No.3837 of 1996 dt.09-04-2015 2 / 2 questions are involved.

I have gone through the order passed by the Director/Consolidation Authority. In my view also, several disputed questions of facts are involved respecting the claim/counter claim of the parties.

In that view of the matter, as agreed at the Bar, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the aggrieved party to seek remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In case the suit is filed within a reasonable period of time, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. No party shall be granted undue benefit of the order which the Consolidation Authorities have passed in their favour at one stage of the proceeding or the other. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U