Satyendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5153 of 2024 ====================================================== Satyendra Kumar Singh Son of Kedar Nath Singh, Resident of VillageNauwan, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Patna.

2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas.

4.

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bikramganj, Rohtas. 5.

The Circle Officer, Dinara, Rohtas.

6.

Virendra Singh, Son of Late Dharamdeo Singh, Resident of VillageNadauwan, P.O.- Karhasi, P.S.- Natwar, District- Rohtas. 7.

The Circle Inspector, Dinara, Rohtas.

8.

The Revenue Karamchari, Halka Harivanshpur, P.S.- Dinara, DistrictRohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal, SC-3 Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate, AC to SC-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 15-07-2024 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "1. i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, Direction/s for quashing judgment dated 25.02.2020 passed in Title Suit No. 397/2002 (Birendra Singh- Plaintiff Vs. Premsheela Kuer and others-Defendants) by Shri Sunil Dutt, learned Sub-Judge-II, Bikramganj, Rohtas as nullity since no such case

2/4 was filed in the jurisdiction of Bikramganj Sub-Division, Rohtas as titled as numbered above, because when the petitioner filed requisition for supply certified copy of the said judgment it was returned to him on 20.04.2023 by making note that "As per report of the office clerk of learned Sub-Judge-II, Bikramganj, petition dated 07.04.2023 is hereby dismissed".

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, Direction/s to the respondents for quashing order dated 20.07.2023 passed by respondent no.

4 in mutation appeal no. 33/2022-23 whereby and under he was pleased to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner, his mother and wife and affirmed the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by respondent no. 5 in Mutation Case No. 796R27/2022-2023, which was based on wrong facts placed by respondent no. 6 and after setting aside the order direct the revenue authority to create Jamabandi in name of the petitioner thereafter issue rent receipt for the land as mentioned in the application situated in Mauza Nauwan, P.S. Rohtas situated in Khata No. 10, Plot No.

70,94,98,97,96,62,129,130,420,94,408

3/4 ,409,96, 419,421,481,482, 408 & 408 admeasuring about 0.43 dec. 0.50 dec.

1 Acre 5 dec., 0.37 dec. 0.15dec., 1 Acre 27 dec., 33 dec., 35 dec., 39 dec., 10 dec., 83 dec., 1 Acre 65 dec., 17 dec., 47 dec., 42 dec., 2 Acre 31 dec., 77 dec., 46.875 dec. and 78.125 dec.

respectively, which is based on a judgement which is nullity in itself and no sale deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent no. 6 who claimed as such before respondent no. 5.

iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, Direction/s to the respondents to quash order dated 29.10.2022 passed by respondent no.

5 in Mutation Case No. 796R27/202223 whereby and under he was pleased to allow the Mutation Case in favour of the opposite party/ respondent herein namely Birendra Singh and issued correction order for entering his name in Register-II on the basis of a judgment which is nullity and sale deed which is forged and fabricated.

iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, Direction's to the respondents to hold an enquiry with regard to forged and fraudulent judgment produced by respondent no.

6 only to dupe the revenue authorities

4/4 for entering his name in Register-II at the cost of the petitioner who is Khatiyani Raiyat of the land in question and respondent no. 6 claimed right, title and interest over the property on the basis of a sale deed executed by the petitioner and his mother which is forged and fabricated and after holding inquiry, appropriate legal action against respondent no. 6 may be taken in accordance with law."

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law, including that of approaching the Ld. Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, for redressal of the aforesaid grievances. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

3.

The writ petition stands disposed off.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U