Rajesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12609 of 2025 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Vameshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Village Darihara Bhual, P.S. Darihara, Sonepur, District - Saran, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

3.

The Circle Officer, Dariyapur, District - Saran, Bihar. 4.

The Station House Officer, P.S. Dariyapur, District - Saran, Bihar. 5.

Sanjay Singh, S/o Krishna Kumar Singh, R/o Village - Darihara Muaal, P.S. Dariyapur, District - Saran, Bihar.

6.

Shakuntala Devi, Daughter in law of Late Keshav Singh, R/o Village - Darihara Muaal, P.S. Dariyapur, District - Saran, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Netan Chouhan, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 05-08-2025 Heard Mr. Netan Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nutan Sahay, learned AC to AAG-12 representing the State.

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

"for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, especially Respondent No. 3, to take immediate action on the representation/application filed by the petitioner on 04.07.2025, is directed in the following facts and circumstances of the case."

Patna High Court CWJC No.12609 of 2025(2) dt.05-08-2025 2/2

3. The petitioner claims that the land ultimately belongs to him but the respondents herein are creating trouble forcing him to move before the Circle Officer, Dariyapur as also the Station House Officer, Dariyapur.

4. Mrs. Nutan Sahay, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner ought to have approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Chapra. Instead, he is moving from one place to another and now invoking writ jurisdiction. Even in the writ petition, he has not made the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Chapra as party respondent.

5. In that background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be approaching the SubDivisional Magistrate, Sadar, Chapra with appropriate petition alongwith documents so that his grievance is redressed.

6. If such petition is preferred, the concerned officer shall be duty to look into the matter and after noticing the party pass an appropriate order.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U