Sadhu Sharan Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7846 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Sadhu Sharan Mahto S/o Late Roop Lal Mahto Vill.- Bachhauli, P.s.Khanpur, distt.- Samastipur

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

¶5

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

¶6

The Collector Samastipur

¶7

The Sub Divisional Officer Samastipur

¶8

The Circle Officer Khanpur, Samastipur, The Executive Engineer Rural Works Department, Work Division, Samastipur

¶9

M/s Brother Builder Mathurapur, Samastipur

¶10

Ram Sudin Mahto S/o Late Baldeo Mahto Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.- Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur

¶11

Ashok Mahto S/o Late baldeo Mahto Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.- Khanpur, Distt.Samastipur

¶12

Ram Gayan Mahto S/o Late Ram Balindar Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.- Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur

¶13

Ram Bahadur Mahto @ Bahadur Mahto S/o Late Jalo Mahto Vill.Bichhauli, P.s.- Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur

¶14

Anil Kumar Mahto S/o Late Rameshwar mahto Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur

¶15

Shyam Narayan Mahto S/o Late Ram Lakhan Mahto Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur

¶16

Vijay Kumar Mahto S/o Late Ram Lakhan Mahto Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur

¶17

Parmanand mahto S/o Late Ram Vinay Mahto Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur

¶18

Suresh Mahto S/o Late Ram Vinay Mahto Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.- Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur

¶19

Harinariyan Mahto S/o Prayag Mahto Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.- Khanpur, Distt.Samastipur

¶20

Asheshar Mahto S/o Bhullu Mahto Vill.- Bichhauli, P.s.- Khanpur, Distt.Samastipur

¶21

... ... Respondent/s

¶22

=============== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s	======================================= : Mr.Bijay Bhushan Prasad
For the Respondent/s	: Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha ( Sc19 )
For the State	: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to SC-19
=============== CORAM: HONOU	====================================== RABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.7846 of 2019(3) dt.03-07-2025 2/3

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

3 03-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶26

counsel for the State.

¶27

The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents not to disturb from peaceful possession of raiyati land of the petitioner appertaining to Khata No. 9, Kheshra No. 589 situated in Village-Bachhauri under Khanpur Block, P.S. Samastipur District- Samastipur.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is that private respondent (the contractor) and state engineer started filling the soil work on the part of raiyati land of the petitioner appertaining to khata no. 9, Kheshra No. 589. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed application before the concerned authority, but nothing happened. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition against the illegal construction on the petitioner’s raiyoti land.

¶29

Learned counsel for the State submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable due to the reason that the State has come with specific stand that on 15.05.2019, the land in question was re-measured by anchal amin and the specific stand has come that no portion of Cadastral Survey Plot No. 589 corresponding to Revisional Survey Plot No. 1317 and 1318 are occupied in construction of road in question and hence,

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.7846 of 2019(3) dt.03-07-2025 3/3

¶31

the claim of the petitioner found absolutely false and the question of encroachment of the raiyoti land upon the registered land of the petitioner does not arise. Counsel submits that the said explanation has come after measurement which is Annexure - D of the writ petition.

¶32

In the light of the stand of State that Mauza Bachauli Revenue Case No. 228, the said portion of plot No. C.S.P 589 corresponding to R.S.P No. 1317 & 1318 has not been acquired in the construction of road. Therefore, as per the measurement, the claim of the petitioner is found absolutely false and the construction of road in question upon the raiyoti land does not arise.

¶33

In the light of the submissions made , the present writ petition stands disposed off particularly when the State has come before this Court with clear stand that there is no encroachment on CSP Plot No. 589. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶34

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶35

Sudhanshu/-

¶36

U T

Sadhu Sharan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu Sharan Mahto 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

Nagina Sah @ Nagin Sah @ Nagina Shah Vs The State of Bihar

Prithvi Nath Singh @ Prithvinath Vs The State of Bihar

Kamli Devi Vs The State of Bihar

bindeshwar yadav @ bindeshwari yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mansur Daraji @ Mansur Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Kumar Mishra Vs The State of Bihar