Foyak Ahmad @ Fayak Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8918 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Foyak Ahmad @ Fayak Ahmad Son of Sayed Jamaluddin Ahmad Resident of Village - Kashi, Police Station - Roh, District - Nawada at present Village - Barui, Police Station - Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger.

3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sheikhpura.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura.

5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sheikhpura.

6. The Circle Officer, Sheikhpura.

7. The Circle Inspector, Sheikhpura.

8. The Karamchari, Sheikhpura.

9. Syed Jiyauddin Kundwi Son of Late Sayed Darjat Karim Resident of Village - Pachna, Police Station - Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-08-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking direction to the Collector, Sheikhpura, respondent No.3 to dispose of the Mutation Revision case filed by the petitioner in the month of January 2018.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Circle Officer on the petition of the respondent No.9 without giving notice to the petitioner in whose name Jamabandi of the land is standing, ordered for mutation of name of respondent No.9. Petitioner filed Mutation Appeal No.9 of 2017-18 before the D.C.L.R. and the D.C.L.R. vide order dated 15.12.2017 dismissed

Patna High Court CWJC No.8918 of 2018 (2) dt.27-08-2018 2/2 the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred revision against the order of D.C.L.R. passed in Mutation Appeal No.9 of 2017-18 but the same revision is pending before the Collector and the respondent No.9 is bent upon to alienate the property. The learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the fact that the revision is pending, this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Collector to dispose of the mutation revision within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Having considered the facts aforesaid and the fact that the Mutation Revision filed by the petitioner is pending before the Collector for last eight months and the respondent No. 9 is bent upon to alienate the property, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Collector to dispose of the Mutation Revision of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

If any petition for stay of the operation of the order is filed, the Collector shall consider it on its own merit. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/Rajan U