Disposed

Manoj Kumar Gupta, v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC29 Nov 2022CWJC/1501/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners requested disposal based on a compromise regarding the sale of forcibly occupied land. The court recorded the compromise between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 satisfying the dispute, observing no need for police possession transfer, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition in terms of the compromise between the petitioner and respondent no. 6.

Manoj Kumar Gupta, Vs The State of Bihar — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1501 of 2022

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Manoj Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Ramprit Sah, Resident of Village - Punaur Tola Kodwara, P.S. - Punaur, District - Sitamarhi.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi.

¶8

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi.

¶9

The Anchala Adhikari, Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.

¶10

The Anchal Amin, Anchal - Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.

¶11

Raj Kumar Mahto, Son of Late Rameshwar Mahto, Resident of Village - Punaura, P.S. - Punaura, District - Sitamarhi.

¶12

... ... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Kumar Ishwar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, S.C.-19

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶16

8 29-11-2022 Heard the parties.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a

¶18

Compromise Petition which has been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.6. As per the compromise, one dhur of land, which was forcibly occupied by the respondent no.6, has now been agreed to be sold by the petitioner to the respondent no.6 for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs).

¶19

In view of aforesaid compromise, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present case may be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.1501 of 2022(8) dt.29-11-2022 2/2

¶21

Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the State, wherein it has been stated that the State requires more time to comply the order dated 15.11.2022.

¶22

Considered the submissions of the parties.

¶23

In view of compromise between the parties, the Police is not required to give possession of one dhur of land, which was occupied by respondent no.6, to the petitioner.

¶24

In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.6.

¶25

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶26

pawan/-

¶27

Manoj Kumar Gupta, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Gupta, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyendra Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Jafre Alam and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Basmato Devi alias Basmato Kunwar

Satyajeet Kumar, Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Salim Khan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Saran Roy, Vs The State of Bihar