Sheo Ratan Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1967 of 2015 ====================================================== Sheo Ratan Sharma Son of Ramjee Sharma, Resident of Village - Ram Nagar Kajra, P.S. + Anchal - Madhwapur, District - madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department Land and Revenue Reforms Bihar, Patna.

2. The Collector, Madhubani.

3. The Additional Collector, Madhubani.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani.

5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani.

6. The Circle Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Madhwapur (Madhubani).

7. Mahantha Shyam Sundar Das S/o Late Vishwambhar Das Asthan, Thalahi Math, Resident of Village - Ram Nagar Kajara, District - Madhubani.

8. Sri Ram Kumar Raut S/o Bikau Raut, Resident of Village - Basuki Bihari, Madhwapur, P.S. - Madhwapur, District - Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ojha, AC to GP-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-12-2016 Heard.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction to the respondent no.2 to re-open the Ceiling Case No. 2 of 73/74, started and concluded against the respondent no.7. Though, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued the matter for sometime, but he has not been able to show from any document that in the aforesaid ceiling case any area of land belonging to the petitioner has been declared surplus or has been acquired by the State Government. The only grievance is that the lands claimed by the petitioner has been treated to be the lands of the respondent no.7. In absence of any material that any area of land either

Patna High Court CWJC No.1967 of 2015 (3) dt.02-12-2016 2/2 belonging to the respondent no.7 or to the writ petitioner have been declared surplus and have been acquired by the State Government, there is no question of re-opening of the aforesaid ceiling case.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U