Sanju Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11421 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Sanju Devi Wife Of Akhauri Rabindra Kumar, Resident Of MohallaSakla Bazar, Police Station Karakat, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Bihar, Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.

2. The Principal Secretary Home Department, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.

3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Patna.

5. The City Superintendent Of Police, Patna.

6. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Patna Sadar, Patna.

7. The Inspector Of Police, Poonpoon Circle, District- Patna.

8. The Officer-In-Charge, Ramkrishnanagar Pss, Patna.

9. The Collector, Patna.

10. The Sub Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna

11. Jagdamba Property Dealer Through Its Proprietor Satish Kumar, Khemnichak, P.S.- Gourichak, District- Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr. J.S. Arora ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 22-02-2016 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Although, the application prays for a direction to provide protection to the petitioner by the State respondents in maintaining her possession over the particular piece of land but on going through the relevant pleadings made in the writ application as well as in the counter affidavit, prima facie, it appears that a land dispute exists between the parties.

Counsel for the petitioner, after making submissions at some length, submits that the petitioner will invoke the statutory

Patna High Court CWJC No.11421 of 2013 (2) dt.22-02-2016 2/2 jurisdiction of the authority for appropriate relief. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 11 in which it has been stated that he has no concern with the land stating further that the vendor of the writ petitioner had earlier sold the subject land to different persons.

The writ application stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to invoke the relevant jurisdiction of the authority/Court in accordance with law in relation to the land claimed by her. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U