Sujit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5271 of 2015 ====================================================== Sujit Kumar, Son of Late nawal Kishore Prasad, resident of Village- Pandaul, Police Station- Shakurabad in the district of Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

4.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jehanabad. 5.

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jehanabad. 6.

The Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur Block in the district of Jehanabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. AC to G.A. 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-09-2017 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

The present writ application has been filed for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities for getting the name of the petitioner mutated with regard to the land appertaining to Khata Nos. 147 and 148, Plot Nos. 1432, 1433,915,677,678,1422,964,970,932 and 913, situated in Mauza - Pandaul in the district of Jehanabad. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jehanabad to the effect that on the application of the petitioner for mutation, a report was called for from respondent no. 6, the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur and demand case was also started with regard to the land in question. The Halka Karmchari, after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5271 of 2015(2) dt.18-09-2017 2/2 respondent no.6, stipulating therein that the petitioner should be directed to file an affidavit to the effect that he has not sold the land in question and he should also be directed to produce revisional Survey khatian of the land in question. Consequently, notice was issued to the petitioner vide notice dated 30.9.2014, as contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit, but the petitioner chose not to appear and filed the present writ application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner never received any notice. However, the petitioner is ready to appear in the proceeding and also undertakes to appear before the respondent no.6, the Circle officer, Ratni Faridpur on 6th October, 2017.

In the circumstances, it is expected from the respondent no.6, the Circle officer, Ratni Faridpur to dispose of the proceeding within a period of eight weeks from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) anil/- U