Sonu Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4165 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Sonu Kumar @ Pawan Kumar S/o Sanjay Singh R/o Village-Barharwa, P.S.Turkauliya, District-East Champaran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Prohibition, Excise and Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Prohibition, Excise and Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate, East Champaran.

¶9

The Additional Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶10

The District Sub Registrar, Motihari, East Champaran.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Ankita Roy, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3 ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 10-04-2025

¶15

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG-3.

¶16

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner, as a minor, through his father, had purchased land pertaining to Khata No. 134, Khesra No. 867, area 1 Katha, at Mauza-Raghunathpur, P.S.- Turkauliya, District-East Champaran by a registered sale deed No. 1844 dated 4-2-2011 executed by Bipin Chandra Lal. It is next submitted that in the registered sale deed dated 4-2-2011 inadvertently Khata No. 206 Khesra No. 869 was also recorded along with Khata No. 134, Khesra No. 867. It is asserted and submitted that the petitioner, as

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.4165 of 2025(2) dt.10-04-2025 2/5

¶18

minor, through his father, had only purchased land pertaining to Khata No. 134, Khesra No. 867, area-1 katha.

¶19

3. It is submitted that petitioner, after attaining majority, came in possession over the land in question in the instant case, further Jamabandi No. 2491 was created in his name. It is next submitted that Jamabandi No. 2491 was created only with respect to land pertaining to Khata No. 134, Khesra No. 867, area 1 Katha, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the order/rent receipt with respect to the land in dispute is not on record.

¶20

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Plot Nos. 861, 862, 866, 867, 868, 871, 870 and 1052 pertaining to Khata No. 134 and Plot Nos. 865, 866, 1068 and 863 pertaining to Khata No. 232 at Mauza-Raghunathpur stands recorded in the name of Laxmi Prasad, Raghubar Sharan Prasad, Jay Chandra Prasad and Lal Prasad, all sons of Bhagwat Prasad, further Plot No. 867 of Khata No. 134 has total area of 5 bigha 13 katha 12 dhur recorded in the records of Right.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that after partition in the family of khatiyani raiyat, they came in separate possession of their share of land and Raghubar Sharan along with his widow daughter in law, namely, Most. Janki Kuer, sold land pertaining to Plot No. 862, area 6 bigha 16 katha 10

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.4165 of 2025(2) dt.10-04-2025 3/5

¶23

dhur, Plot No. 866 area 1 bigha 13 katha 14 dhur, Plot No. 1052 area 16 katha 5 dhur and Plot No. 870 area 7 katha, all pertaining to Khata No. 134 vide registered sale deed dated 26-8-1969 to Lalit Kumar, Omkar Singh, Baidhyanath Singh, Madan Mohan Singh, Arun Singh, Vinod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar. It is thus submitted that Raghubar Sharan along with Janki Kuer in total sold 9 bigha 13 katha of land in favour of the aforesaid purchasers. It is submitted that that from fact as recorded hereinabove, it would manifest that Plot No. 867 of Khata No. 134 was not sold to the aforesaid purchasers.

¶24

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purchasers of the aforesaid lands from Raghubar Sharan and Janki Kuer filed Title Suit No. 48 of 2011 (Annexure-2) in the court of learned Sub-Judge, Motihari, in respect of their purchased land, the learned Sub-Judge, Motihari passed an order dated 29-8-2014 (Annexure-3) in T.S. No. 48 of 2011 and directed for maintaining of status quo.

¶25

7. It is next submitted that Lalit Kumar Singh submitted the copy of the order dated 29-8-2014 in T.S. No. 48 of 2011 before the Sub-Registrar, based on which the registering authority put restriction on all plots of land pertaining to Khata No. 134, though Plot No. 867, Khata No. 134 was not under dispute in Title Suit No. 48 of 2011, which is the purchased land of petitioner, as

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.4165 of 2025(2) dt.10-04-2025 4/5

¶27

such the petitioner represented before the A.D.M, East Champaran, Motihari, vide his representation dated 10-12-2024 (Annexure-4) to remove the land pertaining to Khata No. 134, Plot No. 867 area 1 katha from the restriction list, but then no action has been taken.

¶28

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that from perusal of the sale deed No. 1844 dated 4-22011 executed by Bipin Chandra Lal in favour of the petitioner through his father (Annexure-P/1), it would manifest that the same records that petitioner had purchased land pertaining to Khata No. 134, Khesra No. 867 and the land pertaining to Khata No. 206, Khesra No. 869, further it also manifests that no doubt petitioner purchased 1 katha of land, but then the said 1 katha pertains to both the aforesaid khesras, i.e., Khesra Nos. 867 and 869. It is thus submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that when the jamabandi was created based on the sale deed then on what basis jamabandi has been created only with respect to Khata No. 134, Khesra No. 867, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, though the copy of the jamabandi is not on record.

¶29

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State next submits that if what has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is true, then the

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.4165 of 2025(2) dt.10-04-2025 5/5

¶31

remedy for the petitioner is to seek rectification of the sale deed executed by Bipin Chandra Lal.

¶32

10. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ application with liberty to move before an appropriate forum for seeking redressal of his grievance in accordance with law by seeking rectification of the sale deed dated 4-2-2011.

¶33

11. Permission is accorded.

¶34

12. Accordingly, the instant writ application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶35

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶36

SUMIT/-

¶37

U

Sonu Kumar @ Pawan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar @ Pawan Kumar 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

Parasnath Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Subodh Kumar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Arju Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Bhikhari Rishi Vs The State of Bihar

Chinta Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Bhola Prasad Vs The State of Bihar