Patna High CourtCWJC/808/2016withdrawn

Thakur Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-11-29Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.808 of 2016 ====================================================== Thakur Raghwendra Sharan Singh son of late Gauri Shankar Singh resident of village - Paharpur, Police Station & Anchal - Amnaur, District - Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Anchaladhikari, Amnaur, Saran.

3. Land Revenue Deputy Collector, Marauhra, Saran.

4. Bindeshwari Prasad Singh son of Nagraj Singh

5. Mukteshwar Singh son of Ragho Nand Singh

6. Lal Bahadur Singh son of Ram Ashan Singh

7. Mashwar Prasad Singh son of Ramee Singh Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are residents of village - Paharpur, Police Station and Anchal Amnour, District Saran.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-11-2016 Heard.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 28.09.1988 passed in Mutation Appeal No. 1 of 1988-89 by the respondent D.C.L.R., Marauhra, Saran, as contained in Annexure2 to the writ petition, whereby the aforesaid appeal filed on behalf of one Gauri Shankar Singh, besides others including the petitioner, was dismissed and the order dated 09.12.1986 passed in Mutation Case No. 62 of 1986-87 by the Anchal Adhikari, Amnaur was affirmed.

Evidently, the present writ petition suffers from delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The impugned appellate order was passed on 28.09.1988 and the present writ petition was filed on 12.01.2016 i.e. after delay of about 28 years. Despite repeated query, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.808 of 2016 (2) dt.29-11-2016 2/2 petitioner has not been able to explain such a huge delay of 28 years. In the writ petition also, the delay has not been explained. In above view of the matter, the present writ petition has to fail and is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/- U