← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/16000/2018disposed

Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Sunil Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2023-01-10Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16000 of 2018 ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Sunil Prasad Gupta Son of late Mahendra Prasad Resident of Village- Nokha, Post OfficePolice Station- Nokha, DistrictRohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

3.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 4.

The Anchal Adhikari, Nokha, District- Rohtas. 5.

The Station House Officer, Nokha, District-Rohtas. 6.

Lalji Sah Son of late Mahendra Sah Resident of Village- Nokha, Police Station- Nokha, District- Rohtas.

7.

Dharmshila Devi Wife of Sunil Kumar Gupta Resident of Village- Nokha, Post Office Police Station- Nokha, District- Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat AC to AAG12 For Respondent No.6 :

Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.02.2013 by which the learned DCLR, Sasaram has directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in question within a month. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not noticed by the DCLR and order dated 11.02.2013 was passed behind the back of the petitioner. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioner had informed the revenue court that the land is recorded in the name of his wife.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16000 of 2018(3) dt.10-01-2023 2/2 I have gone through the records and perused the order impugned dated 11.02.2013. No chit of paper is available on the record to show that the petitioner had informed the DCLR in writing that the land belongs to the wife of the petitioner. The order passed by DCLR can be challenged before the Commissioner. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application. The same is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate authority.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U