Surendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4952 of 2018 =========================================================== Surendra Prasad, Son of Late Kameshwar Prasad @ Late Inder Mahto, Resident of Village- Chhoti Aat, Police Station- Ben, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda.

3.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Rajgir, District- Nalanda. 4.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgir, District- Nalanda. 5.

The Circle Officer, Ben, District- Nalanda.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Vinay Prasad Singh @ Sanjay, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-7. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) Date: 12-10-2018 Heard Mr. Ram Vinay Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Alok, learned Standing Counsel No.7 for the State.

The petitioner complains of certain constructions being made on a piece of land which he claims to have been settled in favour of his family by the Ex-Jamindar bearing Khata No.294, Khesra No.3020, area about 41 decimals and another plot bearing Khesra No.3019 having an area of about 53 decimals in Mauza Chhotki Aat Khurd, Block- Ben in the district of Nalanda. According to Mr. Singh, this land was settled by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.4952 of 2018 dt.12-10-2018 Ex-Jamindar in favour of forefather of the petitioner more than 75 years ago and the petitioner has been enjoying the possession thereof since the year of settlement. He submits in reference to a copy of the khatiyan at Annexure-1 that even where the possession of the petitioner is taken note of, yet constructions are going on. Mr. Kumar Alok, learned Standing Counsel No.7 invites the attention of this Court to an order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.18819 of 2013 to submit that this petitioner claiming mutation over the plots in question approached this Court through the writ petition and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Circle Officer to pass an appropriate order.

He submits that no relief was granted to the petitioner and it is wrongly interpreting the order of this Court that the Karmchari started to issue receipt in favour of the petitioner and it is simply relying upon the receipts that the constructions are being questioned without any order of creation of jamabandi in the name of the petitioner or a document confirming title of the petitioner over the piece of land in question.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4952 of 2018 dt.12-10-2018 respondents.

In case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition of the petitioner has not been carried out, the remedy for the petitioner would lie otherwise but since there is nothing on record which would persuade us to hold the title and possession of the petitioner over the piece of land, we refrain from granting indulgence to the issue raised at this stage. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) SKPathak/Anjula AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 26-10-2018 Transmission Date NA