Patna High CourtCWJC/819/2011dismissed

Mukesh Kumar And ANR v. Nirmal Singh And ORS

2015-08-11Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.819 of 2011 ======================================================

1. Mukesh Kumar Late Mundrika Singh Resident Of Village Bhandajor, Police Station Roh, District- Nawadah.

2. Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Raghunandan Singh Resident Of VillageBhandajor, Police Station Roh, District- Nawadah. ....Defendant/Intervener/petitioners

Versus

1. Nirmal Singh Nand Kishore Singh Resident Of Village- Bhandajor, P.S. Roh, District- Nawadah

2. Arun Singh Nand Kishore Singh Resident of Village- Bhandajor, P.S. Roh, District- Nawadah

3. Ramesh Singh Nand Kishore Singh Resident of Village- Bhandajor, P.S. Roh, District- Nawadah

4. Masudan Singh Nand Kishore Singh Resident of Village- Bhandajor, P.S. Roh, District- Nawadah ...Plaintiffs/Respondents

5. The State Of Bihar, Through Collector, Nawadah, P.S and DistrictNawadah.

6. Anchal Adhikari, Roh Anchal Office, Roh, P.S. Roh, District- Nawadah. .... Plaintiffs/Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hansraj For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr Singh No.1 SC-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 11-08-2015 Heard Mr. Hansraj in support of the writ application which has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned trial court in T.S. No. 80 of 2009 rejecting the petition of the petitioner(s) filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The suit was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The plaintiff(s) also prayed for setting aside the entry in revisional survey khatiyan in respect of the suit land as Anabad Bihar Sarkar. Mr. Hansraj counsel for the petitioners states that by such

Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2011 (4) dt.11-08-2015 2/2 application the intervenor-petitioner(s) only requested for impleadment of the State Authority in view of the prayer made and the relief sought for in the suit. The intervenor(s) also wanted to intervene as they claimed to be encroachers of the suit land. I have considered the submissions in the light of the facts emanating from the records including the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned trial court. The trial court has not committed any legal flaw much less patent illegality in passing the said order.

The writ application is dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U