IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.646 of 2011
------------
Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 6th December
2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16594 of 2009.
———
1. Dwarika Prasad , S/O Late Ram Narayan Rai, R/O Village Budhra,
P.S.- Athmalgola, district- Patna.
2. Vishwa Nath Rai, S/O Late Ram Deo rai, R/O Village- Budhra,
P.S. Athmalgola, district- Patna.
3. Ram Pravesh Rai, S/O Late Mishri Rai
4. Jamun Rai, S/O Late Sri Rai
5. Sheoji rai, S/O Late Ram Das rai
6. Radhe Rai, S/O Late Baleshwar Rai
Petitioner nos. 3 to 6 R/O Village- Ganjpar, P.O. + P.S.
Athmalgola, District- Patna……………… Appellants
Versus
1. Laxmi Narayan Ram, S/O Ram Uchit Ram, Village- Ram
Nagar, Diyara, P.S.- Athmalgola, district- Patna…
Petitioner-Respondent
2. The State of Bihar through Secretary Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate- Patna
4. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Barh, Patna
6. The Subdivisional Officer, Barh, Patna
7. The Circle Officer, Athmalgola, Patna.
8. The Officer-Incharge, Athmalgola, P.S. Patna….. … Respondents.
——-
———————————-
4 2-8-2011 Heard the parties.
According to learned counsel for the appellants
respondent no.1,Laxmi Narayan Ram, son of Ram Uchit
Ram, resident of village- Ram Nagar Diyara, P.S.
Athmalgola, district- Patna committed a fraud and obtained
Purcha under the Bihar Privileged Person Homestead
Tenancy Act, 1948 behind the back of the appellant without
2
any notice. According to learned counsel for the appellants
the purcha issued over an area of 62.5 decimals of land
belongs to Ram Nagar Diyara having Tauzi no. 8705
(wrongly mentioned as 8905 at various places) which
belongs to the appellants out of a much larger plot having
an area of 176 Bighas. According to the appellants this
Tauzi is a surveyed land but no plot nos are available for
the lands in question because it is Diyara land. The other
grievance raised on behalf of appellants is that writ petition
bearing no. C.W.J.C. No. 16594 of 2009 was preferred by
respondent no.1 herein without impleading the land-lord
i.e. the appellant and that writ petition was disposed of
finally on 6-12-2010 without notice to the appellants.
Apparently the writ petition filed by respondent
no.1 did not implead any private person and hence, prima
facie his claim was only against the State and its officials.
In such circumstances, if the appellants have sufficient
materials to show interest and title over the land which has
been allegedly settled with respondent no.1, the appellant
should either file a writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs
including review of order dated 6-12-2010 or may file a
3
review petition on the ground that he is adversely affected
by the order and he is the necessary party who ought to have
been heard before the writ petition was finally disposed of.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this
appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the appellants that if
so advised, they may file a writ petition or review petition
seeking appropriate reliefs or review of the order dated 6-
12-2010, subject matter of the present appeal.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
( Shivaji Pandey, J)
Naresh