Patna High CourtCWJC/2356/2014disposed

Sarju Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-08-18Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2356 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Sarju Singh Son of Late Deo Nandan Singh Resident of Village - Devi Bigha, P.S. Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Collector, Aurangabad

3. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad

4. The Block Development Officer, Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad

5. The Circle Officer, Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad

6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Kanap, Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar No.6, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajeet Pratap Singh, SC-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 18-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Although the petitioner had complained that a public road under the Mahtama Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme ('MANREGA' for the sake of brevity) was constructed on his raiyati land bearing Khata No.262 Plot No.2695 area 5 decimals but the allegations of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents who have stated that the road has been constructed on Plot No.2704 and not on Plot Nos.2692 and 2695. Although Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the letter of the Circle Amin present at Annexure-A/1 has submitted that there is some confusion being

Patna High Court CWJC No.2356 of 2014 (2) dt.18-08-2015 2/2 created as to the identity of the plot of the petitioner but in my opinion, any such dispute which relates to either the situs, the identity or the extent of a particular plot is left best to be addressed by the court of competent civil jurisdiction. In the nature of dispute raised on facts as emanating from the records, this Court can do no better but to dispose of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner if so advised to take recourse to the remedy so available to him under the civil laws of the land.

Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J) U