Md. Haidar Imam v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22407 of 2018 ====================================================== Md. Haidar Imam Son of Ovesh Resident of Village-Khirnia,P.S. Mansi,Distt.-Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Commissioner,Munger 3.

The Collector,Khagaria 4.

The Deputy Collectore,Land Rerforms,Khagaria 5.

The Circle Officer,Chautham Khagaria 6.

Shyam Yadav Son of Jai Kishore Yadav 7.

Ghanshyam Yadav Son of Jai Kishore Yadav 8.

Rita Devi W/o Sadanand Yadav Opp.Parties No.6 to 8 Resident of VillageSaidpurO.P.,P.S. Bagha Bazar,P.S. Mansi,Distt.-Khagaria ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Roy -Gp18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 Heard Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) for issuance of writ in the appropriate nature for quashing of the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No.

783/2014 whereby and where under the Hon'ble Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal has

Patna High Court CWJC No.22407 of 2018(3) dt.04-11-2025 2/3 dismissed the application without considering and holding that the both parties are claiming to be same land by two different Bale Deeds without considering that the land of the petitioner and the Respondents No. 06 to 08 are different rather it in of the same plot number which is a bigger area and from the report of the Anchal Amin it appears that the land purchased by the petitioner and the Respondents No. 6 to 08 are different;

(ii) for further direction to the Respondents authority to rehear the matter and pass afresh order considering that both the Sale Deeds are though the same plot but for different boundary;

(iii) and for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the eye of law.

3. The Bihar Land Tribunal on the basis of the facts on record has affirmed the decision of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms as also the Commissioner, Munger taking into

Patna High Court CWJC No.22407 of 2018(3) dt.04-11-2025 3/3 account of the fact that Bibi Kulsum who gifted the land to the grand son and subsequently also sold a piece of land to Dharamnath Jha while the opposite parties claimed to be the purchaser of from the grand son in the year 2003. The petitioner claims to have the land purchased from the sons of Dharamnath Jha in the year 2009.

4. The successive authorities/Court have recorded the aforesaid facts that the ultimate place of forum for the parties is the competent Civil Court. This Court has no reason to take a different view.

5. In that background, allowing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for the redressal of the grievance, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U