Md Naseem Alias Naseem v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.659 of 2024 ====================================================== Md Naseem alias Naseem Son of Md. Alim, resident of village Lilavaran, P.S. Barahat, District Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

Collector cum District Magistrate, Banka.

3.

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Banka.

4.

Circle Officer, Barahat, Banka.

5.

Superintendent of Police, Banka.

6.

Officer In Charge, Barahat, Banka.

7.

Md. Alamgir, Son of Md. Fakhruddin, resident of village Lilavaran, P.S. Barahat, District Banka.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Government Pleader (24) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-04-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) for issuance of an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding and directing to the Respondents specially Respondent No. 2 and 4 to dispose of the petitioners

2/4 representation contained as Annexure P/6 to this writ petition regarding his grievances related to land of Mauja Aurea Thana No. 385, Anchal Barahat of Khata NO. 124, Khesra No. 2504 Rakva 8 Decimal on the basis of original Khatiyan and also registered as Jamabandi No.

2748 in the name of petitioner's Grand Father namely, Nafrul Miyan and the petitioner has already paid Revenue of the above said land till date but one person namely Md. Alamgir (Respondent No.7) has forcibly went to capture the said petitioner's land without any legal basis but the Respondents have not taken any legal step against the private respondent no.

8 while the petitioner has filed

3/4 several representation before the authority but to no effect;

(iii) for issuance of any other appropriate writ (s), order (s) direction (6) as may be deemed it and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. It is unfortunate that even for the disposal of a petition before the respondents since 24.11.2023, a citizen has to invoke the writ jurisdiction unnecessary having financial harassment.

4. As per the writ petition, the petitioner preferred representation before the District Magistrate cum Collector, Banka on 24.11.2023 detailing out the prayer as also the reasons for the said application.

5. Six months have elapsed without there being any response from the concerned respondent.

6. In that background, the respondent District Magistrate cum Collector, Banka is directed to dispose of representation dated 24.11.2023 preferred by the petitioner and as per the documents (number of Annexures are on record) at an earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date

4/4 the copy of the order is provided to his office.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U