← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/1228/2026consigned

Tallu Tudu v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-21Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1228 of 2026 ====================================================== 1.

Tallu Tudu son of Late Baraka Tudu resident of Village- Sohasa, P.S.- Sohasa, District- Katihar.

2.

Amit Tudu son of Late Karan Tudu resident of Village- Sohasa, P.S.- Sohasa, District- Katihar.

3.

Gangaram Marandi son of Late Fagu Marandi resident of Village- Sohasa, P.S.- Sohasa, District- Katihar.

4.

Babulal Soren @ Manjhi son of Late Nemu Soren @ Manjhi resident of Village- Sohasa, P.S.- Sohasa, District- Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and land Reform Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Collector, Katihar.

3.

The Additional Collector, Katihar.

4.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Katihar.

5.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Land Ceiling, Katihar. 6.

The Anchal Adhikari, Kadwa Anchal, District-Katihar. 7.

Shri Ram Sah son of Late Shyamanand Sah, resident of Village Katchaura, P.O.- Kadwa, P.S.- Kadwa, District- Katihar, Pin Code-855113 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Lal, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Standing Counsel (23) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 21-04-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) against the order dated 12.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Barsoi in Land

Patna High Court CWJC No.1228 of 2026(3) dt.21-04-2026 2/2 Dispute Case No.68 of 2023-24 and the Land Dispute Case No.72 of 2023-24 filed by the petitioners as contained in AnnexureP/3 and P/4 by by which the application filed by petitioner against forceful dispossession by Private Respondents has been rejected and further Respondents be directed to take step for rehabilitation to the petitioners.

3. On 29.01.2026, three weeks time was granted to remove the defect(s) and the order was peremptory.

4. As the same was not complied, it stood rejected on 19.02.2026.

5. Perused the file, consigned.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U