Abbas Ali, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13703 of 2025 ====================================================== 1.

Abbas Ali, son of Mohammad Ishaque resident of Village Dumri, P.S.- Ramgarhba, District-East Champaran.

2.

Irfan Ali son of Abbas Ali, resident of Village Dumri, P.S.-Ramgarhba, District-East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Excise and Registration Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4.

The Collector, East Champaran, at Motihari.

5.

The Additional Collector, District Revenue Section, East Champaran Motihari.

6.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Raxaul, District- East Champaran. 7.

The Circle Officer, Ramgarhba Block District- East Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raja Ram Mishra For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel (25) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 30-08-2025 It is the case of the writ petitioners that they wanted to sell the land for augmenting money for the marriage of the daughter of petitioner no. 1. However, a ban was imposed by the authority against the proposed sale of the property. The petitioners made representations before Respondents no. 4 to 7 for lifting the ban. Annexure P/6 shows that the Circle Officer, Ramgarhwa, East Champaran, informed the Additional Collector, East Champaran at

Patna High Court CWJC No. 13703 of 2025(2) dt.30-08-2025 2/2 Motihari, that Jamabandi in respect of the land in question has been in the name of petitioner no. 1, and there is no ban imposed by any authority. The said land is also not acquired by the State Government.

2. After the report was received from the Circle Officer, the Additional Collector (Respondent no. 5) did not take any step to dispose of the representation of the petitioners.

3. For the reasons stated above, the instant writ petition is disposed of, directing Respondents no. 4, 5, and 6 to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners for lifting the ban on the sale of the property within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

4. With the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition is thus disposed of.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) Suraj Dubey/- U