← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/8221/2013dismissed

The Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-09Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8221 of 2013 ====================================================== The Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited, Unit- Motipur P.O. Motipur, P.S.- Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur Through Its General Manager .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Divisional Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar

3. The Collector, Muzaffarpur, Bihar

4. The Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur, Bihar

5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector Muzaffarpur West, Muzaffarpur, Bihar

6. The Circle Officer, Motipur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar

7. Surendra Singh, S/O Late Hari Kishun Singh @ Hari Kishore Singh, R/O Village- Bariyarpur Tola- Nukta,P.S.- Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv. For the Respondent nos.1to6 : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Verma, AC to SC-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-03-2016 Heard the parties.

The present matter arises out of a mutation proceeding.

Indisputably, the claim of mutation raised on behalf of the respondent no.7 with respect to the lands in question, fully detailed in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, was finally allowed by the respondent Circle Officer, Motipur. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Circle Officer, Motipur has been affirmed by the respondent Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur as also by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

Apparently, the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the lands in question has been rejected by the aforesaid authorities.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8221 of 2013 (6) dt.09-03-2016 In above view of the matter, this Court does not feel persuaded to interfere with the orders impugned. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, the petitioner, if so advised, shall be at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of its right, title and possession over the lands in question.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U