High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Lalsa Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 September, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Lalsa Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 September, 2011
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                          Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12352 of 2011
                 1. Lalsa Devi W/O Shri Anil Sharma R/O Vill. Kab P.S.
                 Bikram District: Patna , Currently Residing At Rani Talab
                 Kanpa , District: Patna.

                                               Versus
                 1. The State Of Bihar
                 2. The Collector, Patna
                 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Paliganj, Patna.
                 4. Rabindra Nath Tiwary S/O Late Deo Nandan Tiwary R/O
                 Vill- Kab Tola , Basantpur , P.S. Bikram , Currently Residing
                 At Rani Talab , P.S. Kanpa , Patna.
                 5. Mostt. Lal Muni Devi W/O Late Dinesh Tiwary R/O Vill-
                 Kab Tola , Basantpur , P.S. Bikram , Currently Residing At
                 Ashiyana , Sector 4 Gandhi Nagar , Patna.


                 For the Petitioner : M/s Patanjali Rishi and
                                          Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Advocates
                 For the State      : Mr. Adityua Natha Pandey, AC to GA 5



2   05.09.2011

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

the State.

Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated

27.10.2010 passed by the respondent no. 3, the

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Paliganj in Land

Ceiling Case No. 39 of 2009-10 filed under Section

16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling

Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961.The

application for preemption was allowed by the

impugned order.

2

However, it is fairly submitted on behalf of

the petitioner that appeal being Land Ceiling Appeal

No. 59 of 2010 has also been filed against the

aforesaid order which is pending before the respondent

no. 2. A copy of the memorandum of appeal has been

appended as Annexure 7 to this writ application.

In above view of the matter, since the

petitioner has already challenged the order

impugned before the appellate authority, he cannot

maintain this writ application at this stage.

Accordingly, this writ application is

dismissed.

However, the respondent no. 2 should

take steps for expeditious disposal of the concerned

appeal.

Spd/-                           ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)