Dismissed¶28

Rubi Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Mar 2025CWJC/3675/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; no interference. Panchayat Bhawan construction, Raj Hardiya, Plot No. 409, Mauza Hardiya, Anchal and Block Raxaul, District East Champaran; land measurement dispute (50 decimals required vs about 36 decimals on Plot No. 409); respondents included State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department, DM-cum-Collector East Champaran, Deputy Collector Land Reforms Raxaul, Circle Officer Raxaul, Officer Incharge Raxaul Police Station; August 2023 proposal by BDO, Circle Officer and Executive Engineer Division-II Pakri Dayal; mandamus refused; Patna High Court CWJC 2025; judge Rajesh Kumar Verma.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner annexed no paper suggesting that the construction was going on; the proposal was of 2023 and her representation (Annexure-4) stated only that the construction was near her house.

Rubi Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3675 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Rubi Devi wife of Sudheer Upadhyay, D/o Kamakhya Pandey, Resident of Village Ratanpur, Ward No. 13, Raxaul, P.S. Raxaul, District East Champaran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran at Motihari.

¶9

The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Raxaul, District East Champaran.

¶10

¶11

The Circle Officer, Raxaul, District East Champaran.

¶12

The Officer Incharge, Raxaul Police Station, District East Champaran.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.1, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (07)

¶15

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Date : 03-03-2025

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶18

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:

¶19

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents for restrain the construction of Panchayat Bhawan, Raj Hardiya, under Anchal and Block- Raxaul, District- East Chamapran bearing Plot No. 409, under Mauza hardiya, District- East Champaran

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.3675 of 2025 dt.03-03-2025 2/3

¶21

(ii) For direction to the respondents before construction, measurement be completed because for the Panchayat Bhawan 50 Decimals land is required but the said Plot No. 409 is only about 36 Decimals land

¶22

(iii) For any other relief/s which the petitioner is legally entitled.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in August 2023 a proposal was initiated by the Block Development Officer, Circle Officer, Raxaul and Executive Engineer, Division-II, Pakri Dayal, District- East Champaran for construction of the building of Panchayat Bhawan Raj Hardiya. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the land of the petitioner adjacent to the proposal of the building construction which was near the house of the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition only to a direction upon the respondent authority to shift the construction of Panchayat Bhawan, Raj Hardiya under Anchal and Block- Raxaul, DistrictEast Champaran to any other place.

¶24

Having heard the parties and on consideration of the material available on record in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has not annexed any paper which suggests that the construction is going on and apart from that it appears from the

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.3675 of 2025 dt.03-03-2025 3/3

¶26

representation of the petitioner (Annexure-4 of the writ petition) in which it is stated that the construction is near the house of the petitioner and apart from that the proposal was of the year 2023.

¶27

In view of the above, no case is made out for interference in the matter by this Court.

¶28

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶30

Ibrar//-

¶31

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	04.03.2025
Transmission Date	N.A.

Rubi Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubi Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhramveer Giri @ Dharamveer Jayram Giri @ Dharambir Giri Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Rajak @ Mangal Rajak @ Suraj Kumar @ Mangal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Atharuzzaman @ Ujali @ Alharuzzama Vs The State of Bihar

Gauri Shankar Upadhyay Vs The State of Bihar

Pratima Devi Vs The State of Bihar