Patna High CourtCWJC/10406/2012dismissed

Nilesh Kumar Sarawgi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-22Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10406 of 2012 ====================================================== Nilesh Kumar Sarawgi, Son Of Shri Om Prakash Sarawgi, Resident Of Village Panjwara, Post Panjwara, Police Station Barahat, District Banka .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through Consolidation Director, Bihar, Patna

2. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna

3. The Consolidation Officer, Barahat, District Banka

4. The Circle Officer, Barahat, District Banka

5. Sitaram Bhagat

6. Ashok Bhagat Both Sons Of Late Sri Lal Bhagat, Resident Of Village Panjwara, Post Panjwara, Police Station Barahat, District Banka .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondent nos.1to4 : AC to AAG-14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-01-2016 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2009 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.83 of 2004 by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna, whereby the aforesaid revision case filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 35 of The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 has been rejected.

Apparently, the petitioner directly filed the aforesaid revision case before the revisional authority. The claim of the petitioner regarding lands in question is based on un-probated will. Therefore, the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected by the revisional authority.

Though, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued the matter at some length, but he has not

Patna High Court CWJC No.10406 of 2012 (5) dt.22-01-2016 been able to point out any legal or procedural infirmity in the impugned order.

In above view of the matter, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U