Rajesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9143 of 2026 ====================================================== 1.

Rajesh Rai Son of Late Yogendra Rai, Resident of Rampur Nurnagar Kanhi, P.S.- Jalalpur, District- Saran.

2.

Aman Kumar Tiwari, Son of Late Sukhdeo Tiwari, resident of Jalalpur, P.S. Jalalpur, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The District Magistrate, Saran.

3.

The Superintendent of Police, Saran.

4.

The District Sub-Registrar, Saran.

5.

The Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Saran.

6.

The Circle Officer, Jalalpur, Saran.

7.

The Station House Officer, Jalalpur Police Station, Jalalpur, Saran. 8.

Sri Kant Singh Son of Late Bharat Singh, resident of Sanvari Bajar, P.S. Jalalpur, District- Saran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Standing Counsel (28) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026 Heard Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

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

(i) for a direction to respondents authority to protect the possession and enjoyment of the purchased land of petitioners, situated under Mauza. Kanhi, Thana no. 160/1, Pragana-

Patna High Court CWJC No.9143 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 2/2 Bal, Khata No. 392, Anchal- Jalalpur, District- Saran, Rakaba-Four Katha, Ten Durhki plot no. 212 from any construction or boundary wall by unsocial elements of Private Respondents, in view of the fact that the Sub-registrar, Saran has found the claim of the Private Respondent no.-8, is suspicious and not genuine;

(ii) for a direction to the respondents authority to grant any other relief/ reliefs in the fact and circumstances of the case.

3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary submits that he shall be pursuing the matter before the appropriate respondent authorities so that the highhandedness attitude of some of the local officials come to light.

4. Learned State counsel has no objection.

5. Granting said liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U