Patna High CourtL.P.A/1818/2017dismissed

Rajendra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-05-17Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1818 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1652 of 2008 ====================================================== Rajendra Mahto son of Late Bangali Mahto resident of village Binda, Police Station Mushari, District Muzaffarpur.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Joint Director Consolidation, Muzaffarpur.

4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Consolidation Officer, Mushahari, P.S. Mushahari, District Muzaffarpur.

6. Most. Prema Devi W/o Late Tilak Prasad Sharma

7. Bharat Prasad Sharma

8. Pankaj Pd. Sharma

9. Rajesh Pd. Sharma all sons of Late Tilak Prasad Sharma

10. Munni Devi

11. Nutan Devi

12. Miki Kumari, all daughters of Late Bindeshwar Mahto

13. Sumitra Devi daughter of Late Bindeshwar Mahto and wife of Lali Mahto

14. Chandreshwar Mahto son of Late Kusheshwar Mahto

15. Shail Devi, wife of Chandreshwar Mahto respondent nos. 6 to 12 and 14 to 15 are residents of village Binda, P.S. Mushahari, District Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Md.Khurshid Alam,AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 17-05-2018 Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State.

Perused the impugned order dated 28.11.2017. The learned Single Judge is absolutely correct in his view that if the present appellant is son of one Bengali Mahto, if at all was

Patna High Court LPA No.1818 of 2017(2) dt.17-05-2018 2/2 aggrieved by the order passed in CWJC No. 533 of 1986 and CWJC No. 5116 of 1985, he should have preferred an L.P.A instead of filing writ application and trying to reopen a settled issue.

The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/Pragya U