Sudhir Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15133 of 2025 ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar Singh Son of Late Nand Kishore Singh, Resident of MauzaDhanpurwa, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas Through his Authorized Representative Vivek Kumar, S/O Sudhir Kumar Singh, R/O MauzaDhanpurwa, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram).

2.

The Additional Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram).

3.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Rohtas (Sasaram). 4.

The Circle Officer, Anchal- Sasaram.

5.

Ravindra Pratap Singh, Son of Shyam Bihari Singh, Resident of MauzaBauara, P.O. and P.S.- Chand Chainpur, District- Kaimur. 6.

Shankar Singh, Son of Bharat Singh, Resident of Mauza- Hurka, P.O. and P.S.- Tilauthu, District- Rohtas.

7.

Rajendra Singh, Son of Bharat Singh, Resident of Mauza- Hurka, P.O. and P.S.- Tilauthu, District- Rohtas.

8.

Ramayan Singh, Son of Bharat Singh, Resident of Mauza- Hurka, P.O. and P.S.- Tilauthu, District- Rohtas.

9.

Girdhar Gopal Singh, Son of Late Gupteshwar Singh, 10.

Damodar Singh, Son of Late Gupteshwar Singh, 11.

Laxman Singh, Son of Gupteshwar Singh, 12.

Dhananjay Singh, Son of Late Bharat Singh, Resident of Mauza- Majari, P.O.- Kooki, P.S.- Shiosagar, Distrct- Rohtas. 13.

Bansidhar Singh, Son of Late Gurudeo Singh, Resident of Mauza- Hurka, P.O. and P.S.- Tilauthu, District- Rohtas.

14.

Baliram Singh, Son of Bikrama Singh, Resident of Mauza- Nojari, P.O.- Konki, P.S.- Shiosagar, District- Rohtas.

15.

Shriram Singh, Son of Bikrama Singh, Resident of Mauza- Nojari, P.O.- Konki, P.S.- Shiosagar, District- Rohtas.

16.

Praduman Kumar Singh, Son of Late Jugal Kishore Singh, Resident of Mauza- Nojari, P.O.- Konki, P.S.- Shiosagar, District- Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Mayuri, Advocate :

Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Government Advocate (10) :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to GA-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

2/4 ORAL ORDER 20-07-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

"(i) for issuance of an appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions the nature of Certiorari or order/orders for quashing the order dated 19.02.2025 passed in B.L.T. Case No.-696/2024 by which the learned Chairman, The Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna dismissed the application filed by the petitioner against the common order dated 25.03.2024passed by Additional Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram) in Mutation Revision No.-52/2019, wherein the Mutation application of private respondents 2nd set (purchasers for mutating their name in records of right was allowed, ignoring the statutory provision as enshrined under section 6(12) & 6(13) of Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 that application for mutation can't be allowed during pendency of title suit and further physical possession is must on the land in question.

(ii) for quashing the common order

3/4 dated 25.03.2024 as well as modified order dated 15.04.024 passed by Additional Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram) in Mutation Revision No.- 52/2019 by which the mutation application filed by the private respondents (2nd Set) for mutating their name in the records of right for the land under dispute has been allowed without appreciating the facts that Final Decree in Title Suit No.-158/1986 as well as Title Suit No.- 1305/2022 are pending with regard to the land in question and further the applicants/purchasers are not having physical possession over the land in question.

(iii) for issuance of direction upon the Official respondents not to proceed with the mutation of the land under dispute pursuant to the order dated 25.03.2024 as well as modified order dated 15.04.2024 passed by Additional Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram) in Mutation Revision No.-52/2019, during pendency of the instant writ application.

(iv) For further kind indulgence of this

4/4 Hon'ble Court to look into the matter and the concerned respondents may be directed to produce all connected records for perusal and for passing an appropriate order.

(v) For any other relief/reliefs that the Hon'ble Court may grant in the interest of the petitioner that may be deemed appropriate and necessary in this case."

3. In this case on 25.09.2025 two weeks' time was granted to remove the defect.

4. As it was a peremptory order and not complied, it stood dismissed on 30.10.2025

5. Perused the file, consigned.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U