The judgment emphasizes compliance with procedural mandates in land disputes and confirms the affirmation of lower court orders regarding property rights.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

5 09-12-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

“for issuance of a writ/order/

directions to the respondents not to dig Pokhar in R.S. Plot no. 166 appertaining to R.S. Khata no. 346 area 73 dec. which is situate in Village Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, Revenue P.S. No. 214, District-Kaimur as same is his raiyati land which is the source of their livelihood and as yet not a single inch of the aforesaid plot has been acquired by the State of Bihar till date.”

3. The Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh in the Case No. 24/2013-14 passed an order on 19.10.2016. The State went in appeal vide Appeal No. 64 of 2017-18 before the Court of Deputy Director, Consolidation, Rohtas, Sasaram (The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Hawaldar Singh & Ors.).

4. By a reasoned order dated 12.06.2018, it came to be dismissed and the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer was confirmed/affirmed.

5. In between, the writ petition was pending before this Court and after number of hearings, finally on 03.11.2025, after the supplementary affidavit that was filed on behalf of the petitioner informing that the Consolidation Appeal stands dismissed on 12.06.2018 and no revision petition has been preferred by them, this Court wanted the Collector, Kaimur (respondent no.2) to file an affidavit.

6. Paragraph no.6 to 8 of the order dated 03.11.2025 read as follows:

“6. As a last chance, the State is allowed to file affidavit on behalf of the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua (Respondent No. 2) bringing on record:-

“(i) Whether the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram in Consolidation Appeal No. 64 of 2017–18 (State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Habaldar Singh and Ors.) has been challenged or not;

(ii) If the same has not been challenged till the passing of the order, the steps that the State intends to take.”

7. Failure to file the affidavit, the concerned respondent shall be depositing Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.

8. List this case on 08.12.2025.”

7. The office notes records that no affidavit was filed but Mr. Arifdaula Siddhiqui, learned AC to SC-25 representing the State, in the Court handed over the affidavit signed by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh, Kaimur. This was put on affidavit on 05.12.2025 but was kept in the office by the office clerk till the case was taken up today on 09.12.2025. The reason is clear, the annexure that has been attached shows the date as 09.12.2025 whereas the affidavit took place on 05.12.2025. How and under what circumstance this annexure dated 09.12.2025 has become part of the affidavit dated 05.12.2025, only office clerk and the Advocate Commissioner, Ms. Uzma Sultan can explain.

8. A cost of Rs.1,000/- is imposed upon the office clerk attached to the office of the learned State counsel, Md. Irshad which is to be paid by him from his own pocket to the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee by Friday (12.12.2025), failing which appropriate steps shall be taken.

9. A perusal of paragraph no.6 of the order dated

03.11.2025, would show that the following points that were recorded to be answered by the respondents:

(i) whether the order passed in Consolidation Appeal No. 64 of 2017-18 has been challenged by the State or not;

(ii) if the same has still not been challenged till the passing of the order (03.11.2025), the steps that the State intends to take.

10. The respondents were to answer on the steps taken after the dismissal of appeal in the year 2018. It seems that the State respondents defying the said order dated 03.11.2025 promptly took steps and one page of the plaint of the Chakbandi Revision Case No. 123