Satya Vijay Prasad Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.5162 of 2017 (2) dt.09-08-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5162 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Satya Vijay Prasad Singh, Son of Late Rameshwar Prasad Singh,

2. Prakash Chandra Singh, Son of Sri Satya Vijay Prasad Singh, Both are Resident of Village- Karma Bhagwan, P.S. Aurangabad, DistrictAurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Collector of the District Aurangabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad.

4. The Circle Officer, Circle Aurangabad.

5. Krishna Vijay Prasad Singh, Son of Late Rawneshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Karma Bhagwan, Police Station- Aurangabad, DistrictAurangabad.

6. Vikash Chandra.

7. Avinash Chandra, Both sons of Sri Satya Vijay Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Karma Bhagwan, P.S. & District- Aurangabad. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy-GP18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to get the purchased land of the petitioner measured.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the land and filed petition for demarcation of the land but his own brother objected such demarcation. From perusal of Annexure-5 itself, it appears that the vendor of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5162 of 2017 (2) dt.09-08-2018 petitioner and father of the petitioner are relatives. Some portions of the aforesaid land were sold by the vendors of the land in favour of brother and father of the petitioner. On the basis of such sale, the entire area including the land purchased by the petitioner are amalgamated with each other and fencing was erected on such own brother of the petitioner objected such demarcation. A partition suit is also pending between the parties and there involves question of title.

Having considered the facts aforesaid and the facts that a partition suit is also pending between the parties, the aggrieved party may move the court for the relief sought from the Revenue authority and it does not appear to be appropriate to give any direction to demarcate the land of the petitioner particularly when the matter is pending before the Civil Court. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U