Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.


Patna High Court – Orders
Raju Mahato vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 20 December, 2010
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CWJC No.16515 of 2010
                     RAJU MAHATO s/o Jageshwar Mahato, residing at Ward
                     No.31, Sardar Patel Nagar P.O.+P.S+Dist. Saharsa and
                     presently elected to the post of The Chair man, Nagar
                     Parishad, Saharsa, Dist. Sahrarsa..        ..Petitioner.,
                                              Versus
                        1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief
                           Secretary, Old Secretariat Govt. of Bihar (Patna),
                        2. The Collector at Saharsa, Dist. Saharsa,
                        3. The S.D.O at Saharsa, Dist. Saharsa
                        4. The B.D.O at Kahra Dist. Saharsa
                        5. The Executive, Saharsa Dist. Saharsa
                        6. Lalla Prasad Berma s/o Tapeshwari Bhagat, Ward
                           No.31 Sardar Patel Nagar, P.O+P.S+Dist. Saharsa..
                                                          ........Respondents
                        For the petitioner: Mr. S.S.P.Yadav, Advocate
                        For the State : Mr. Ajay ,SC-XXIV
                                        ................

6 20.12.2010 After hearing the parties, we find that there is

dispute over the land between the petitioner and some other on

one hand and respondent No.6 on the other. From the

pleadings in the writ petition particularly in Paragraph 4(iii) as

well as from the Amin’s report, Annexure- B to the counter

affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is clear that the land

over which road is being claimed by the petitioner is Raiyati

land. According to petitioner, the Raiyats by agreement gave

up part of their private lands for purpose of a road but

respondent No.6 has now obstructed that road by creating

gate and a wall.

2

In our view, the dispute lacks elements of public

interest and is fit to be settled between the parties before an

appropriate court. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed

of.

(Shiva Kirti Singh, J)

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)
Sanjay-II


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.107 seconds.