Ajay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1354 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4687 of 2015 ============================================== Ajay Kumar Singh, son of Late Sitaram Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Malkhachak, P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran (Chapra). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Collector, Saran at Chapra.
3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Sonepur, District- Saran.
4. The Anchal Adhikari, Dighwara Anchal, District- Saran.
5. The Halka Karamchari, Mahal Basantpr, Gram Panchayat Baruan, Village- Malkhachak, P.S.- Dighwara, Block- Dighwara, DistrictSaran (Chapra). ... ... Respondent/s =============================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s:
Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam - AAG12 =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 19-04-2018 It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No 4687 of 2015 which was disposed of on 23.06.2015 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra by filing a representation along with copy of documents as well as a copy of this order. M.J.C. No. 593 of 2016 for modification of that order was filed by the petitioner stating that description of the land was wrong in paragraph nos. 1 and 4 of the writ petition. Accordingly, the description of land was allowed to be amended
Patna High Court MJC No.1354 of 2017(3) dt.19-04-2018 2/3 by recording new Khata No. 517/60-61-62 belonging to Tauzi No. 2938, Thana No. 140, Sonepur Pragana Kasmar, District Saran" and the said application was disposed of on 02.03.2016. Yet again, the petitioner filed for modification of that order and about 62 plots have been included for amendment in the order passed in the writ petition.
This court is surprised as to how such steps can be taken by the petitioner time and again.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that every time the petitioner files an application for correction of the Khata No. and Plot No. etc. and this time he has included about 62 plots.
In my opinion, this is an abuse of process of law. However, the petitioner is personally present and submits that he did not have knowledge of earlier order which has been passed and further since learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to withdraw this application, this application stands dismissed as withdrawn, however, with a caution to the petitioner to be careful in future. This is also intriguing as to how a copy of the petition would be served upon the Office of the Advocate General after changing two pages, i.e., Page Nos. 3 and 4.
Patna High Court MJC No.1354 of 2017(3) dt.19-04-2018 3/3 Be that as it may, since an apology has been tendered by the learned counsel, the petitioner and the Advocate Clerk, this Court would not proceed further on this issue. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Vikash/- U