Ramesh Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.910 of 2025 ====================================================== Ramesh Bhagat S/O- Late Bhikhari Bhagat, R/o- Vill.- Shahpur, Pakdiyar, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Collector, Gopalganj, Dist.- Gopalganj (Bihar). 3.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj (Bihar).

4.

The District Land Survey Officer, Gopalganj, Dist.- Gopalganj (Bihar). 5.

The Circle Officer, Block- Kuchaikote, Dist.- Gopalganj (Bihar). ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Adesh Raj, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 28-01-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to make correction in Jamabandi of the land of the petitioner in the light of order dated 15.10.1985 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Gopalganj, in Jamabandi Case No.29/198283.

3. Counsel submits that the DCLR has passed the order on 15.10.1985 which was final order and fit to be implemented forthwith. He further submits that the petitioner may be granted relief as provided under Section 4 of The Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.910 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2025 2/2 Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (Bihar Act 4 of 2010).

4. Learned Counsel for the State seeks time to file a counter-affidavit in this case.

5. In view of the Court, there is no need of filing counter-affidavit in such type of cases. It is also impermissible in law to implement an order which is about 40 years old and till date, no effort has been made for its tarmim (execution).

6. It transpires to this Court that the order is 40 years old and the petitioner is 44 years old. Since the order has not been executed for 40 years, therefore, on the basis of said decision, this Court restrains himself to pass any order.

7. But liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may file a fresh petition, if cause of action arises for the petitioner by way of filing an application under B.L.D.R. afresh, adding all the concerned persons whose interest have developed in the said land.

8. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present writ application stands disposed off. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U