Kamal Kant, v. The State Of Bihar Through Sri C.K. Anil, The Principal Secretary Revenue Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4020 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13148 of 2025 ====================================================== Kamal Kant, Son of Sahdeo Prasad Singh, Resident of Present at H.No. 87, Shiv Path Bhatia Basti PO Kadma Village and Post Office Kudhni, Police Station Jamshedpur District-Purbi Singhbhum, State Jharkhand, Permanent Address Village-Chhoti Malawan, PO- Badi Malawan, PS-Sarmera DistrictNalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Sri C.K. Anil, The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Patna, Bihar.

2.

Sri Kundan Kumar, The District Magistrate, Nalanda. 3.

Sri Manish Sharma, The Additional District Magistrate, Land Reforms, Nalanda.

4.

Sri Shrikant Kundalik Khandekar, The Deputy Development Commissionercum-Chief Executive Officer, Nalanda. 5.

Sri Kajle Vaibhav Nitin, The Sub-Divisional officer, Nalanda, at Biharsharif. 6.

Smt. Sabina Khatoon, The Circle Officer, Sarmera, Nalanda. 7.

Sri Sunil Kumar Panchayat Secretary, Sarmera, Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Prakash Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Smt. Anuradha Singh, SC-21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 Heard the parties.

The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

"for initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondent authorities for their willful disobedience of the order dated 19.08.2025 passed in CWJC No. 13148 of 2025

Patna High Court MJC No.4020 of 2025(4) dt.15-05-2026 2/2 passed by the Hon'ble Court."

3. A show cause has come which shows that an order has been passed vide memo no. 382 dated 09.05.2026, the opposite party no.4, the Deputy Development Commissionercum-Chief Executive Engineer, Nalanda has rejected the claim of the petitioner.

4. In that background and the petitioner has always liberty to challenge the said order, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U