Chandravanshi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16268 of 2023 ====================================================== Chandravanshi Kumar Son of Late Ruplal Mahto, Resident of Village and Panchayat- Madhopur Anant, P.S. and Block - Sheohar, District- Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Sheohar.

4.

The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sheohar. 5.

The Sub-divisional Officer, Sheohar, District - Sheohar. 6.

Deputy Development Commissioner, Sheohar.

7.

The Block Development Officer, Sheohar, District - Sheohar. 8.

The Circle Officer, Circle- Sheohar, District - Sheohar. 9.

The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Madhopur Anant, Block - Sheohar, District - Sheohar.

10.

Nathuni Kumar @ Nathuni Sahni, Son of Late Sakal Sahni, Resident of village - Shahpur, P.S. Sheohar, District - Sheohar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kameshwar Pd. Gupta (Gp10) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-05-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for: "issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for direction to Respondent Authorities to ban construction of Panchayat Bhawan bearing Khata No. 222, Khesra No. 1005 area 02 dec. land given by private Respondent No.10 whereby and where under the approval has been granted by the Respondent Authorities for construction of

Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2023(2) dt.04-05-2026 2/2 Panchayat Bhawan appertaining to villageShahpur Block Sheohar, District-Sheohar as it is not property in name of private Respondent No.10 namely Nathuni Kumar though it is a disputed land for which a Title Suit No. 84 of 2010 is going on and pending before the learned Sub-Judge, Ist, Sitamarhi now Sheohar and not only this construction of the Panchayat Building will further cause disturbance of public access to road which is in fact partially the public land being used since decades and decades as the source of entry and exit of the locality or any other relief/reliefs for which petitioner is entitled."

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition to approach appropriate authority to show the highhandedness of the respondents.

4. Granting said liberty and without commenting on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of. (Rajiv Roy, J) atul/- U T