Kamleshwar Tiwary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anupa Nand Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.K. Roy- Gp18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 02-12-2025 Heard the parties.

¶14

The present petition has been preferred for the

¶15

following relief/s:

¶16

(i) for issuance of direction upon the respondent to cure/correct the record of the petitioner from Register 2 or entry from the Bhagalpur and issue registry rent office receipt of 0.15 Decimal Land of the petitioner which was purchased in the year

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.10372 of 2017(5) dt.02-12-2025 2/8

¶18

2005;

¶19

(ii) for any other relief or reliefs which may be deemed fir and proper in the interest of justice.

¶20

The matter relates to a piece of land with following

details:

Khata No. 65;

Khesra No. 245;

Area- 0.15 decimal;

Thana- 296 under Nathnagar Circle in the district of

¶26

Bhagalpur.

¶27

The petitioner claims to purchase the said plot from

¶28

one Bipin Mishra, son of late Deepnarayan Mishra on 15.11.2005. Asha Tiwary, who purchased the land died on 02.08.2008 and the petitioner is her husband. For the purchase made in the year 2005, an application for mutation was made on 14.12.2016, when action taken place, an appeal was preferred before the Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur when a report came from the office of the Circle Officer, Nathnagar that earlier, Deepnarayan Mishra sold land to number of people and after mutations process completed with respect to such people, only 0.1 decimal of land remains (Annexure 3 to

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.10372 of 2017(5) dt.02-12-2025 3/8

¶30

the petition). Accordingly, the petition of the petitioner was disposed of on 28.03.2017/31.03.2017 (Annexure 4 to the petition). The relevant paragraph is incorporated herein below:

¶31

“dzekad&10] ;g fd orZeku esa vkosnd }kjk [kjhn dh xbZ [ksljk esa ek= 0- 01 Mh0 tehu “ks’k cpk gSA

¶32

vr% mijksDr izfrosnu ls Li’V gksrk gS fd nhi ukjk;.k feJ] firk&pdz/kj feJ] lkfdu&jkeiqj Mhg }kjk [kkrk&65 ds [ksljk 245 dk 0-50 Mh0 jdok esa ls 5 vU; O;fDr;ksa dk dzekad 1 ls 5 rd dks dze”k% 0-09] 0- 10] 0-10] 0-12 1@2] 0-7 1@2 Mh0 ;kfu dqy 0-49 Mh0 tehu dsokyk dj fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj dqy 0-50 Mh0 esa ls ek= 0-01 Mh0 tehu gh “ks’k cp jgk gSA tcfd ifjoknh }kjk 0-15 Mh0 tehu ds jlhn dh ekax dh tk jgh gSA izfrosnu ds vuqlkj mDr lHkh nkf[ky&[kkfjt 2008&09] 2011&12] 2010&11 ,oa 2011&12 dk gS] tcfd ifjoknh }kjk mDr tehu 2005 esa gh [kjhnk x;k gS ,oa vapykf/kdkjh ds Lrj ls izkIr izfrosnu ls izrhr gksrk gS fd ifjoknh }kjk djk;s x, nkf[ky&[kkfjt okn la0 4177@15&16 ls 2015&16 esa djk;k x;k gSA bl chp pkj nkf[ky&[kkfjt okn }kjk [ksljk 245 ds 0-50 Mh0 jdck ls lHkh jdck ?kVrs gq, ek= 0-01 Mh0 jdok “ks’k cpk gSA blesa dzsrk dh Hkwfedk Hkh lafnX/k gS fd tc 2005 esa gh ifjoknh dks tehu fcdz; dj fn;k x;k] rks iqu% ml tehu dks fdlh vU; jS;r dks D;ksa fodz; fd;k x;kA vr% ifjoknh dk ekeyk tekcanh lq/kkj dk ekeyk izrhr gksrk gSA

¶33

vr% ifjoknh dk ifjoknh i= bl lw>ko ds lkFk fu’ikfnr fd;k tkrk gS fd blds fy, os l{ke U;k;ky; esa viuk okn nk;j dj ldrs gSaA bl fofu”p; dh izfr ifjoknh dks lwpukFkZ HkstsaA

¶34

ys[kkfir ,oa la”kksf/kr

¶35

g0 @& 28-03-17 g0 @& 28-03-17

¶36

yksd f”kdk;r fuokj.k inkf/kdkjh yksd f”kdk;r fuokj.k inkf/kdkjh lnj] Hkkxyiqj lnj] Hkkxyiqj ”

¶37

5. Aggrieved, the present writ petition.

¶38

It is to be noted that Annexure 3 contains the letter

¶39

no 213 dated 20.02.2017 issued by the Circle Officer to the

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.10372 of 2017(5) dt.02-12-2025 4/8

¶41

Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur, Sadar enclosing the report of the Anchal Amin, according to which Birendra Prasad Singh, Ram Swaroop Singh, Shankar Singh, Saro Devi were the earlier purchasers from Deepnarayan Mishra (father of Vipin Mishra from whom the petitioner claims to have purchased the land) and the report clearly shows that after mutation of the land in question in their favour, only 0.1 decimal land is left out. Certainly, they have not been made party respondent in the writ petition.

¶42

Two counter affidavits came to be filed by the Circle Officer, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur, one shows that a rent receipt was issued with respect to 0.15 decimal of land for the year 2018-19 but the second supplementary affidavit filed by the same office in paragraph 10 records as follows:

¶43

10.That after hearing the parties as well as after going through the aforesaid Reports and also after much deliberation and due consideration the Sub-Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur came to the conclusion that out of 50 decimal land of the Khata No. 65, Khesra No. 245 Sri Deep

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.10372 of 2017(5) dt.02-12-2025

¶45

5/8

¶46

Narayan Mishra son of Late Chakradhar Mishra had sold 49 decimal land to five different people. According to the report of the Circle Officer, Nathnagar vide letter no. 213 dated 20.02.2017, all the above imitations are of 2008-09, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2010-11, 2011-12, whereas the petitioner filed his mutation vide mutation Case No. 4177/2015-16 Meanwhile, due to live imitation cases, the area of 50 decimal of the said Khesra has been reduced and only 1 decimal land is left, 'The matter clearly involved the issue of Title and hence directed the petitioner to move before the Civil Court vide Order dated 28.03.2017.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purchase was made from the son of Deepnarayan Mishra, earlier, they delayed the mutation to the lady who subsequently died in the year 2008. Later, the husband (petitioner herein) pursued before the Circle Officer, failed and then knocked the

¶48

Patna High Court CWJC No.10372 of 2017(5) dt.02-12-2025 6/8

¶49

doors of this Court.

¶50

The State Counsel on the other hand refuted the claim of the petitioner by submitting that all the purchasers got the land purchased from the father of Deepnarayan Mishra. Admittedly, the alleged sale deed which the petitioner has flashed (not annexed with the writ petition) records the status of Deepnarayan Mishra as late Deepnarayan Mishra, there is nothing on record to show that from 2005 to 2016, the petitioner/his late wife pursued the matter.

¶51

Admittedly, the father, Deep Narayan Mahto sold the land, mutations took place earlier as recorded above and only 0.1 decimal land has now been left out. In that circumstance, the Circle Officer, Nathnagar cannot issue rent receipt for 0.15 decimal of land. Admittedly, if the petitioner has to get hold of his land pursuant to the said sell, he has to knock the doors of the Competent Civil Court after making all the earlier purchasers as defendants so that they can also respond to the said case with regard to the purchase/mutation and a final order can be passed thereafter.

¶52

So far as the non-joinder of parties is/are concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has complete knowledge of the purchasers in favour of whom mutations made

¶53

Patna High Court CWJC No.10372 of 2017(5) dt.02-12-2025 7/8

¶54

as manifest from Annexure 3, still deliberately, they were not impleaded as party respondents.

¶55

This Court is guided by the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Collector and Ors reported in 2003 (3) SCC 472 in which it was held that nonjoinder of necessary party can be the ground for dismissal of writ petition. Having taken note of the fact and hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deliberately preferred the writ petition knowing very well about the aforesaid facts/purchase made by the purchasers from the father of Vipin Mishra namely, late Deepnarayan Mishra still deliberately chose not to make the purchasers as party respondents. Once the Circle Officer has come to the conclusion that only 0.01 decimal of land of Deep Narain Mishra is left, he has to move before the competent Civil Court.

¶56

So far as the present case is concerned, the same is ill-advised and is dismissed both on merit as also non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶57

The Collector, Bhagalpur shall look into the matter as in the present case, the Circle Officer, Nathnagar filed two affidavits on oath. In the first affidavit, the stand was that

¶58

Patna High Court CWJC No.10372 of 2017(5) dt.02-12-2025 8/8

¶59

the grievance has been redressed and the rent receipt has been issued whereas it was in second affidavit that a stand was taken that only 0.01 decimal of land of Deep Narayan Mishra has been left out and as such, no step can be taken.

¶60

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶61

A copy of the order be communicated to the Collector, Bhagalpur for his/her perusal and needful.

¶62

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶63

Ravi/-

¶64

U

Kamleshwar Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamleshwar Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramsaran Mahto Vs Sitabo Devi

Kanhaiya Prasad and Ors. Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ravindra Prasad Srivastava @ Ravindra Lal and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Ajay Paswan @ Vijay Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.