Maya Devi, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20162 of 2021 ====================================================== 1.

Maya Devi, D/o Late Hari Mahton, W/o Laxman Prasad Sinha @ Laxman Shyamlal Prasad Sinha @ Laxman Mahto, resident of Village-Chandi, P.S. Ariari (Kasar), District-Sheikhpura.

2.

Laxman Prasad Sinha @ Laxman Shyamlal Prasad Sinha @ Laxman Mahto, son of Shyamlal Prasad, resident of Village-Chandi, P.S. Ariari (Kasar), District-Sheikhpura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura.

3.

The Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura.

4.

The Dy. S.P. Sheikhpura.

5.

The S.H.O. Ariari, District-Sheikhpura.

6.

Brijnandan Prasad, Son of Late Hari Mahto, resident of Village-Chandi, P.S. Ariari (Kasar), District-Sheikhpura.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Najmul Hodda For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Md. N. H. Khan ( Sc1 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2022 Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. This writ application has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to provide protection to the petitioners in peaceful enjoyment of their property. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the owner of lands, details of which are mentioned in paragraph 4 of this application, The land, in question, was gifted by the father of petitioner no. 1, Hari Mahto, in favour of petitioner no. 1 through gift deeds. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.20162 of 2021(2) dt.20-04-2022 2/2 contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner no. 1 is the only daughter from the first wife of her father, but subsequently, father of petitioner no. 1 solemnized second marriage with another woman, namely, Sobha Devi, from whose wedlock, Brij Nandan Prasad (respondent no. 6) was born and said respondent no. 6, with the help of anti-social element, has been interrupting her in enjoying the fruits of the property.

After some argument, learned Counsel for the petitioners proposes to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura, in this regard. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the petitioners are permitted to file representation before the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura, and if such a representation is filed by the petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura, will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √