Dismissed

Shanti Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC29 Apr 2019CWJC/15502/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ to quash an encroachment order regarding property mutation. The court dismissed the application as a proxy suit since the petitioner had already approached the civil court, where status quo regarding the property was already in place, rendering the writ uncalled for.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed as uncalled for; no indulgence granted.

Shanti Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15502 of 2016

¶2

====================================================== Shanti Singh W/o Late Tej Narain Singh, Resident of Miss Mandal Compound, Narain House, Boring Road, Patna. ... ... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Government of Bihar, Pantna.

¶5

The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶6

The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Gaya.

¶7

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and Revenue, Gaya.

¶8

3 29-04-2019

¶9

The Circle Officer, Manpur, Gaya. …….Respondent 1^st Set 6. Indradeo Vidrohi son of Ram Sharan Mahto, resident of Village & P.O. Khanjamapur, Police Station Buniyadganj, District-Gaya. ..Respondent 2^nd Set ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha-SC 19 ======================================================

¶10

Indradeo Vidrohi son of Ram Sharan Mahto, resident of Village & P.O. Khanjamapur, Police Station Buniyadganj, District-Gaya. ..Respondent 2^nd Set

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel,

¶13

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, Gaya, in Encroachment Appeal No. 09 of 2013. The factual matrix relevant for deciding the writ application is summarized hereinafter: that the petitioner is the daughter of Late Ramadhin Singh, Ramadhin Singh has seven sons and one daughter. In connivance with the brothers, Mr. Ranvijay Singh got his name mutated. Mr. Kishore submits that due to the compromise entered between seven brothers, the right and interest of the petitioner, who is the daughter of Ramadhin Singh, and entitled to a share in the property of Ramadhin Singh was adversely affected. He submits that in a land encroachment proceeding, the matter was taken to the appellate forum, the

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.15502 of 2016(3) dt.29-04-2019 2/3

¶16

Collector, Gaya, who passed an order for keeping jamabandi standing in the name of Ranvijay Singh and others in abeyance and also observed that the issue of jamabandi in favour of Ranvijay Singh and others be taken before the competent civil court. Aggrieved by the order of Collector in Encroachment Appeal the petitioner has filed the present writ application.

¶17

It is admitted position that the petitioner has filed a suit before the competent civil court, where she has raised issued of partition between the brothers excluding the petitioner, the daughter of Late Ramadhin Singh.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is protection order passed by the learned civil court, in the nature of status quo. In the land encroachment proceeding, the Collector, Gaya, has passed the order, which adversely affects the interest of Ranvijay Singh, whose jamabandi was kept in abeyance. It is nobody’s case including the petitioner that she is in favour of the jamabandi standing in the name of Ranvijay Singh. However, she herself is aggrieved by the creation of jamabandi and filed suit, which is pending before the competent civil court, which has passed the order of status quo.

¶19

The Court does find any justification to entertain the present writ application, which appears to be proxy, since the

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.15502 of 2016(3) dt.29-04-2019 3/3

¶21

petitioner has already approached the competent civil court and status quo in relation to property in question is already available. Filing of the present writ application, is uncalled for as the interest of the petitioner, is well protected in the pending suit. The Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence in the present proceeding.

¶22

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶24

Ashish/-

¶25

Shanti Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yugal Kishore Yadav Vs Mudal Yadav and Anr.

Laxman Singh and Ors. Vs Gopal Singh and Ors.

Prem Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md Mojahid Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Binod Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Alamgir Khan @ Ali Imam Khan and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.