Jailal Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18427 of 2016 ====================================================== Ambika Prasad S/o Late Ramudgar Mahto Resident of village - Koraia Laukhan, Police Station Ghorasahan, District East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
The Anchaladhikari, Ghorasahan, Police Station Ghorasahan, District East Champaran Motihari 3.
Sri Mahesh Baitha Son of Chulahi Baitha 4.
Sri Mukhlal Baitha Son of Tapsi Baitha O.P. No. 3 and 4 resident of Mauza Kaswa Laukhan, Police Station Ghorasahan, P.S. Laukhan Via Dhaka, District East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18474 of 2016 ====================================================== Jailal Mahto Son of Satya Narayan Mahto, resident of Village Laukhan, TolaKoraiya Police Station Ghorasshan, District East Champaran Motihari. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
The Anchaladhikari Ghorasahan, Police Station Ghorasahan, District East Champaran Motihari.
3.
Sri Mangal Baitha, Son of late Mahesh Baitha, 4.
Sri Shankar Baitha Son of Mahesh Baitha. O.P No. 3 and 4 are residents of Mouza Kaswa Laukhan, Police Station Ghorasahan, P.O. Laukhan, Police Station Ghorasahan, P.O. Laukhan Via Dhake, District East Champaran Motihari.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18779 of 2016 ====================================================== Chandradeo Prasad S/o Jank Mahto Resident of Village-Laukhan TolaKoraiya, Police Station Ghorasshan, District East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
The Anchaladhikari, Ghorasahan, Police Station Ghorasahan, District East Champaran Motihari
2/4 3.
Sri Mahesh Baitha Son of Chulahi Baitha Resident of Mouza Kaswa Laukhan Via Dhake, District East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18427 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Sajid Salim Khan- SC-25 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18474 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18779 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam-AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-08-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The present petitions have been preferred for the following relief(s):
"against the Notice issued by Anchaladhikari Karyalay, Ghorasahan, P.S.
Ghorasahan, District-East Champaran, Motihari under seal and signature of Anchaladhikari, Ghorasahan dated 05.09.2007 and makes prayer to quash the Notice as it is unwarranted, perfectly illegal and without any justification what so ever. By this Notice the petitioner was informed that as per Bhu-Hadbandi Bad Sankhya 70/74-75 land of Khata No. 104, Khesra No. 1021, Area 0.01 acre has been given to Mahesh Baitha, Son of Chulhai Baitha & Mukhlal Baitha, S/O Tapsi Baitha and
3/4 the petitioner by force has not given possession of the same and further petitioner was directed to appear in the Office of Anchaladhikari on 17.09.2007 at 11.00 A.M. with all proofs and submit show cause petition and as such makes prayer for the following RELIEFS:- (a) The above mentioned Notice at Annexure-1 may kindly be quashed.
(b) This writ application kindly be allowed with cost.
(c) Any other Relief / Reliefs which this Hon'ble court finds fit & reasonable may also be given to the petitioner."
3. The three petitioners have moved before this Court challenging the notice dated 05.09.2007 issued by the Circle Officer, Ghorasahan, East Champaran.
4. The petitioners claim that the Circle Officer, Ghorasahan, East Champaran could not have issued the notice and as such, instead of replying to the notice, they rushed to the High Court.
5. Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned GP-14 led the three cases and according to him, the notices is/are dated
4/4 05.09.2007, nine years later, instead of replying to the said notices, the petitioners have preferred the writ petitions. It is to be noted that exactly after nine years, the matters are being taken up. Lots of water has flown down the Ganges since the year 2007 if the Circle Officer, Ghorasahan, East Champaran has not acted for nineteen years, the notice even otherwise has become infructuous.
6. However, if the notice still is/are in force, the natural recourse for the three petitioners herein is/are to reply with appropriate documents to satisfy the said Circle Officer, Ghorasahan, East Champaran.
7. This Court can only observe that if the petitioners reply to the said notices, the same be taken to its logical conclusion.
8. This order is being passed under the premise that the notice still has any force, if not, the same be consigned.
9. The three writ petitions stand disposed of with a common order.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U