Patna High Court - Orders
Anirudh Prasad Singh @ Anirudh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 April, 2014
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 7592 of 2005
======================================================
Anirudh Prasad Singh @ Anirudh Singh, son of Surya Deo Singh, resident
of village - Kapripur, PS - Basantpur, District - Siwan, at present resident
of Brahampura railway colony, PS - Brahmapura, District - Muzaffarpur
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1 The State of Bihar
2 The Collector, Muzaffarpur
3 Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Muzaffarpur
4 Circle Officer, Mushari, Muzaffarpur
5 Smt Namuna Devi, wife of late Sukhdeo Prasad Sinha, resident of
Mohalla - Brahampura, PS - Brahampura, District - Muzaffarpur
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Vishwanath Pd Sinha, Sr Advocate with
Mr Rajeev Ranjan &
Ms Bela Singh, Advocates
For the S t a t e : Mr AC to AAG III
For Respondent No 5 : Mr Keshav Srivastava, Sr Advocate with
Mr Arun Kumar Prasad Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 16-04-2014Heard Shri Vishwanath Prasad Sinha for the petitioner, Shri Keshav Srivastava for private respondent No 5 and learned counsel for the State.
This writ petition had been admitted for hearing with an interim order. There has been application for varying the interim order. Instead of hearing the matter for limited purpose, the matter, being almost a decade, with consent of parties, the pleadings being complete, the writ petition was heard for its final Patna High Court CWJC No.7592 of 2005 (7) dt.16-04-2014 2 disposal at this stage itself.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Collector passed in Revision Case No 51 of 2004-2005 (Namuna Devi -Versus- Anirudh Prasad Singh) being order dated 15.04.2005 (Annexure 3). By this order, the Collector of the district has set aside the orders of the Circle Officer and DCLR in mutation proceedings which orders were passed in favour of the writ petitioner. While setting aside those orders, the District Collector has remanded the matter to the DCLR for fresh consideration in accordance with the directions contained in the order of the District Collector.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The reasons are as follows.
It appears that respondent had purchased, on different dates from different persons, lands in different quantities appertaining to common plots as per cadastral survey. She had applied for mutation. Apparently, in the same plot, petitioner also had land purchased long back. There had been dispute between petitioner's father's vendors and vendors of respondent No 5. Orders under Section 146, CrPC were passed in favour of vendors of respondent No 5. Apparently, father of petitioner filed a suit and lost. Appeal also was dismissed. In the meantime, there Patna High Court CWJC No.7592 of 2005 (7) dt.16-04-2014 3 already had been a revisional survey. Apparently, the problem compounds by virtue of these revisional survey entries. Ultimately, disputes having been arisen in these mutation proceedings, the Collector, noticing the facts, has remanded the matter to DCLR with a direction to, inter alia, verify the possession because neither of the party is disputing the possession, verify the cadastral survey plot and the revisional survey plots, identify the areas with either party and then, after hearing both the parties and examining these aspects, pass appropriate orders.
Having considered the matter, in my view, the District Collector has done the right thing to resolve the dispute once and for all. It is a step in the right direction. If the directions of the Collector are scrupulously followed by the DCLR keeping in mind that he has got to resolve the dispute then, in my view, the authorities would come to a just solution and a just order. This Court, in these proceedings, is inapt to decide the issue either way. Therefore, this Court does not interfere with the order of the District Collector.
As the matter is very old and before the records start becoming traceless, I direct the parties to appear before the DCLR, Muzaffarpur (East) on 19.05.2014 with copy of this order. The DCLR, in presence of both the parties or the party appearing on Patna High Court CWJC No.7592 of 2005 (7) dt.16-04-2014 4 that day, fix a date for hearing pursuant to the orders of the District Collector. It would be open for the DCLR to consider the cases of the parties on their own merit.
The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
M.E.H./- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)