Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Patna High Court - Orders

Sri Bijay Kumar Dixit vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 January, 2009

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                       CWJC No.461 of 2007
                 SRI BIJAY KUMAR DIXIT, son of Radha Krishna Dixit
                 by profession Service holder, resident of village Bheldi
                 P.O. and P.S. Bheldi, District Saran (Chapra), at present
                 Baykitak No.193773, W.Sena - Nevey Rank, E R A III,
                 Mumbai (Maharastra)..... Petitioner
                                        Versus
                  1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
                 2. The District Collector, Saran, District Chapra, Bihar
                 3. The Collector cum Magistrate, Saran at Chapra
                 4. The DCLR, Sadar, Saran at Chapra (Saran)
                 5. Circle Officer, Parsa Block, Chapra (Saran)
                                             .........Respondents
                                      -----------

02- 6.1.2009 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned JC to AAG VI. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.9.2006, passed by the learned Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra, in Land Settlement Case No.10/06 (Vijay Kumar Dixit vs. State of Bihar). It appears that the petitioner is an ex-defence personnel, and submitted an application for settlement of certain lands under the policy decision of the State Government. It further appears that that the learned Collector has by the impugned order directed the concerned authorities below him to make enquiries, and submit a report, on the lines indicated in the impugned order. The writ petition raises a grievance before this Court that he has made irrelevant queries delaying disposal of the matter before him. It appears to me that the matter is still at large before the learned Collector and the petitioner ought to have raised his objections before him. It goes without saying that the learned Collector shall dispose of the matter pending before him in accordance with the established procedure and the policy decision of the State Government. -2-

2. This writ petition is in fact premature and not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.

( S K Katriar ) mrl