Bijay Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2521 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5227 of 2011 =========================================================== Bijay Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Ram Pratap Sah, R/o Ward No. 23, Station Road, P.S. Madhepura, District Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Shri Gopal Prasad Meena, the District Magistrate, Madhepura, District Madhepura.

3. Shri Lakhindra Paswan, the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Madhepura, District Madhepura.

4. Pradip Kumar Krith, S/o Late Subhash Yadav, R/o village + P.O. - Vidigrami, P.S. Bihariganj, District Madhepura.

5. Shri Navin Kumar Sinha, the Officer In-Charge, Madhepura, District Madhepura.

6. Shri Bimal Kumar Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, Madhepura, District Madhepura.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra For the State : Mr. S. Choubey, AC to GP 1 For the Opposite Party No.3 : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

The present application is filed by the petitioner for compliance of order dated 16.10.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5227 of 2011 whereunder the observation was made to the effect that if the application is filed within a period of four weeks as required under the Rule of Nagar Parishad, the same be considered in accordance with

Patna High Court MJC No.2521 of 2014 dt.06-02-2015 2/2 law after hearing of the concerned parties.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance of the order under contempt, the petitioner filed an application on 05.11.2012 regarding the measurement of lands covered in three sale deeds and accordingly, the measurement has been made in presence of the petitioner twice, which would appear from Annexures-8 and 9 series of the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party no.3. As such, the order under contempt has been fully complied.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land in question has not been measured properly and the petitioner has sent the application to Collector, Madhepura raising his grievance through post.

In compliance of order under contempt, the land in question has been measured, as such no further action is required. Accordingly, this contempt application is disposed of. However, petitioner would be at liberty to get disposed of his representation, as alleged to be sent, before the Collector, Madhepura in accordance with law.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U