Gokul Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13543 of 2022 ====================================================== 1.

Gokul Singh Son of Late Surendra Singh, Resident of Village- Ridhal Pindhal, P.O. and P.S. - Azamnagar, District- Katihar. 2.

Anand Singh Son of Late Surendra Singh, Resident of Village- Ridhal Pindhal, P.O. and P.S. - Azamnagar, District- Katihar. 3.

Narayan Singh Son of Late Surendra Singh, Resident of Village- Ridhal Pindhal, P.O. and P.S. - Azamnagar, District- Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Katihar.

3.

The Consolidation Officers, Azamnagar, Katihar. 4.

The Circle Officer, Azamnagar, Katihar.

5.

Dhaneshwar Singh Son of Chan Mohan Singh, Resident of Village- Pindhal P.O. and P.S.- Azamnagar, District- Katihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Musowir, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha (Sc19) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

" For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction (S) to the respondents specifically the respondent no. 3 i.e. Consolidation Officer, Azamnagar, Katihar, to correct the name of the petitioners in the Chakbandi Khatiyan in relation to Chak Khata No. 905 plot No. 1362 an

Patna High Court CWJC No.13543 of 2022(3) dt.23-07-2026 2/2 area of 0.56 decimals respectively prepared on the basis of R.S. Khata No. 106 R.S. Plot No. 1362, which is illegally and without any basis prepared in the name of respondent no. 5 in the Chakbandi khatiyan and thereafter the respondent no.5 has been creating trouble in peaceful possession.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of a wrong order, the petitioner's name has been deleted in the Chakbandi Khatiyan.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is a statutory appeal available to the petitioner.

5. Having heard the parties and in view of the fact that there is statutory appeal, I am not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate authority. (Alok Kumar, J) Anand/- U