Ram Jatan Giri v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11631 of 2015 ====================================================== Ram Jatan Giri son of Devan Giri, resident of village- Sursand Panchayat Sursand North W.No.-13, Post Anchal Sursand, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.
The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Pupari, Sitamarhi 3.
Smt. Tara Devi W/o Sri Upendra Chowdhary 4.
Smt. Lalita Kumari W/o Sri Brajesh Thakur All are Residents of Sursand Post Sursand, P.S. Anchal Sursand, District- Sitamarhi 5.
Urmila Devi W/o Ram Jatan Giri, Resident of village- Sursand Panchayat Sursand North W.No.-13, Post P.S. Anchal Sursand, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
None For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Raza Ahmad, Aag9-S ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 14-07-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State is present.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):.
for issuance of appropriate writ for setting aside the Order dated 21.5.2015 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Pupari in B.L.D.R. Case No.234/13-14 as the said order has been passed without having any jurisdiction to decide in the matter as the private respondents are neither the settlee nor the allottee under any of the 6 enactment which has been envisaged under
Patna High Court CWJC No.11631 of 2015(3) dt.14-07-2025 2/2 the afore concerned Act i.e. Bihar Dispute Resolution act 2009 and as such the case being non-maintainable was not within the permissible jurisdiction of this Act.
3. Learned State Counsel submits that the contention that has been put forward by the petitioner can be adjudicated best by the Competent Civil Court and not the Writ Court.
4. The contention seems to be justified. However, since there is no appearance, the petition is dismissed for nonprosecution.
5. Before parting, this Court would like to put on record the fact that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 needs to be deprecated as nothing can be extracted from the said reply and merely the facts that has been recorded in the writ petition have been repeated. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U