Disposed

Mukesh Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Sept 2024CWJC/14622/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought cancellation of a land-settlement parwana and jamabandi allegedly collusively obtained by the private respondent. The court disposed of the petition with liberty to approach the Collector, East Champaran, who must decide the matter within four months after hearing all stakeholders.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application before the Collector, East Champaran within four weeks; Collector to decide per law within four months.

Mukesh Kumar Mishra Vs The State of Bihar — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14622 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Mukesh Kumar Mishra, Son of Devendra Narayan Mishra, Resident of Village Paltu Belwa, Police Station- Chakia, District East Champaran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

¶8

¶9

¶10

The Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶11

The Additional Collector (Revenue), East Champaran, Motihari.

¶12

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chakia, East Champaran.

¶13

¶14

The Circle Officer, Kalyanpur, East Champaran.

¶15

Ishwar Mahto, Son of Late Rijhan Mahto, Resident of Village Paltu Belwa, Police Station Chakia, District East Champaran.

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

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

¶18

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajnish Shandilya, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader-11 ======================================================

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

2 24-09-2024 Heard the parties.

¶22

The petitioner has preferred the present writ

¶23

petition seeking cancellation of parwana of land-settlement issued under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 in favour of respondent no. 7 measuring total 19 decimal consisting two plots bearing plot no. 470 appertaining to khata 57 and plot no. 598 appertaining to khata 62, situated at village Paltu Belwa, circle Kalyanpur, District East Champaran, and thereupon to cancel Jamabandi No. 115 running in the name of private respondent No. 7.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.14622 of 2024(2) dt.24-09-2024 2/3

¶25

Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner and his family members have been coming in continuous possession of the land described under the settlement parwana and the private respondent never claimed any right or interest on the basis of the parwana which has been collusively obtained by him. However, recently the petitioner came to know that one Bangali Paswan and the respondent no. 7 in collusive manner contested BLDR Case No. 19/2014-15 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chakia, East Champaran in respect of the portion of the land in question on the basis of the parwana of settlement purportedly granted under the Land Ceiling Act.

¶26

It is further contended that in the afore-noted proceeding neither any notice was ever issued to the petitioner or his family member, nor they were made party before the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Chakiya and without verifying the description of land from the notification dated 20.08.1983 published in the District Gazette of the surplus land decided the BLDR case in favour of the private respondent vide order dated 30.09.2014. Since the parties to the said proceeding was under collusion, therefore, the opposite party of the said suit did not prefer to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. However, the order is not binding upon the petitioner in any manner.

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.14622 of 2024(2) dt.24-09-2024 3/3

¶28

Learned Advocate for the State at this juncture, contended that if the petitioner has any grievance that the parwana has been obtained by the private respondent in a collusive manner, the petitioner has the remedy to approach before the District Magistrate who shall look into the matter and pass appropriate order.

¶29

Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the grievance as raised before this Court, the present writ petition stands disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari preferably within a period of four weeks by filing an appropriate application/case. In case such application/case is filed before the respondent no. 3 within the period aforesaid, the same shall be considered and disposed off in accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders preferably within a further period of four months.

¶30

The writ petition stands disposed off with the aforesaid direction.

¶31

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶32

supratim/-

¶33

Mukesh Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shairun Nisha Vs The Union of India

Vinay Kumar @ Binay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Laxman Prasad Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary

Bashishth Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Awasthi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mojahir Hussain Vs The State of Bihar