IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC NO.14826 OF 2010
RATNESHWAR PRASAD PATHAK @ RATNESHWAR PATHAK, SON OF LATE
JAMUNA PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJHWARI, POLICE STATION
SIMRI, DISTRICT BUXAR ........................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR,
PATNA
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE -CUM- COLLECTOR, BUXAR
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BUXAR
4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, DUMRAON, BUXAR
5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SIMRI, DISTRICT BUXAR
6. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, SIMRI, POLICE STATION SIMRI, DISTRICT
BUXAR
7. LAL SAHAB YADAV, SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH YADAV, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE MAJHWARI, POLICE STATION SIMARI, DISTRICT BUXAR
..........................................................................................RESPONDENTS
*******
3 08/11/2010 In this case, notices were issued to respondent
no. 7, who had appeared through the Counsel. Nobody
has appeared in this Court to represent respondent no. 7.
The land in question is the ancestral property
of the petitioner and his family members. Apparently, the
case of the petitioner is that by family arrangement, the
lands were allotted to his father. The uncle of the
petitioner, namely, Laxmi Narayan Pathak sold the lands
to the father of respondent no. 7, namely, Raghunath
Yadav.
Raghunath Yadav challenged the order dated
25th July, 1997 passed in Revision Case No. 165 of 1988
claiming that the order of the Joint Director,
Consolidation was unwarranted and should be set aside.
2
The Court while hearing the writ application has found
that the private respondent is claiming the lands through
a sale deed executed by Laxmi Narayan Pathak without
any permission under Section 5 of the Consolidation Act.
As such the Court granted relief to Raghunath Pathak to
get a fresh sale deed executed in his favour and
thereafter approach the appropriate Courts. Apparently,
this was not done. Raghunath Yadav also filed CWJC No.
8205 of 2007, which was disposed of on 10.02.2009. In
the said writ application, the order dated 22.12.2006
passed by the Collector, Buxar in Case No. 61 of 2000
under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings
(Maintenance of Records) Act was under challenge.
Raghunath Yadav withdrew the writ application with
liberty to file a civil suit. According to the petitioner, the
heirs of Raghunath Yadav or for that matter, Raghunath
Yadav has not instituted any civil suit. The obvious result
of the aforesaid litigation is that the petitioner in whose
favour there is an order of mutation by the Circle Officer/
the Collector/the Joint Director, Consolidation is in
possession over the lands in question.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that
respondent no. 7 is disturbing the possession of the
petitioner and creating problems over the lands in
question.
3
A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is
stated that 107 proceedings has been initiated against
respondent no. 7 as well as the petitioner. It has further
been stated that on 01.10.2010, the Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Dumraon has taken steps under
Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also
directed the respondent no. 7 to maintain law & order.
This Court finds that the State is taking steps
to protect the interest of the petitioner. Obviously, in view
of the various orders of different Courts and the High
Court, the respondent no. 7 would have no right left over
the lands in question. Since the State is taking adequate
steps to protect the interests of the petitioner, no further
order is required to be passed. The petitioner may
present a copy of this order before the State Authorities
as and when required.
This application is accordingly disposed of.
Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )