Tapeshwar Singh @ Tapeshwar Bhai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14015 of 2015 ====================================================== Tapeshwar Singh @ Tapeshwar Bhai Son of Late Fauzdar Singh, Resident of village and Post- Jagatpur, P.S.- Phulparas, Dist- Madhubani, Presently Turstee of Sarva Seva Sangh Khadi Gram Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through Collector Jamui 2.

Collector Jamui 3.

Addl. Collector, Jamui 4.

Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jamui 5.

Circle Officer, Barhat, Jamui 6.

Kapildeo Singh, Secretary, Shram Bharti, Khadi Gram, Jamui ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 21-12-2022

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed as under:

"That, instant Civil Writ application is being preferred before this Hon'ble Court, for the following relief(s):- I. For commanding and directing the Respondent No. 2 to properly hear and expeditiously dispose of the Land Mutation Appeal No. 05/2015, after hearing all the concerned parties, which is Pending before it.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14015 of 2015(2) dt.21-12-2022 2/2 II. For commanding and directing the respondents to provide proper, sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to place his stand, before the learned Collector Jamui, before whom the aforesaid appeal is pending for disposal.

III. For any other relief(s) for which, the Petitioner is found entitled in the eye of law."

2. The writ petition for directing the respondents to decide appeals could not be maintainable as day to day functioning of the respondents cannot be controlled by this Court.

3. If the petitioner wants any expeditious disposal of his appeal, he must move through appropriate application before the concerned Court itself.

4. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) pravinkumar/- Item no. 44 U