IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15683 of 2016 ======================================================

Smt. Sumitra Devi ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar and Ors.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocate : Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

7 09-02-2026 Heard the parties.

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

“(i) for quashing the order dated 16/05/2003 passed in Mutation Appeal No-2/97-98 by the learned DCLR, Barh, Patna whereby the learned D.C.L.R. has review his own order dated 08/04/01 passed in earlier Mutation Appeal No.-

6/1996-97/ 2/1998-99.

(ii) for the direction may given to maintain the order dated 08/04/2001 passed in Mutation Appeal No-6/1996-97/ 2/1998-99 by learned DCLR, Barh, Patna with regard to the same land.

(iii) for restrain the private respondent from interfering the peaceful possession of the petitioner till the disposal of the present writ application.

(iv) for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to to whether after an order came to be passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barh, Patna in Mutation Appeal No. 6 of 1996-97 (Sumitra Devi vs. Tarani Prasad Singh) which was disposed of on 08.04.2001 (Annexure- 4 of the petition) in favour of the petitioner, can he pass another order on the same piece of land in Appeal No. 2 of 1997-98 (Sumitra Devi vs. Tarani Prasad Singh) on 16.05.2003 (Annexure-7 to the petition) which went in favour of the respondents.

4. The matter relates to Khata No.229, Plot No. 18, Thana No. 60, Tauzi No. 8246 under Mauja-Sahri, P.S.-Barh, Patna (area 4 Katthas 8 Dhurs).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to paragraph no.11 of the petition to show that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms instituted the Mutation Appeal No. 2 of 1997-98 and by passing his earlier order dated 08.04.2001 in Mutation Appeal No. 6 of 1996-97 went on to uphold the order passed in Mutation Case No. 8 of 1995. The question that has been raised, as recorded above is, can he do so.

6. A counter affidavit of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Patna is on the record and he has chosen not to gave paragraph-wise reply and instead has justified the action. In that background, it would be appropriate that the Collector, Patna look into the matter and file paragraph-wise reply to the writ petition.

7. It has been informed by learned counsel representing the respondent no. 5 to 10 that the copy of the counter affidavit has not been handed over to him. The same is to be provided to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 to 10 in next two days and the receipt has to be filed by 12.02.2026 by the office of learned Standing Counsel-25 failing which learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 to 10 shall be entitled to Rs.1,000/- as cost.

8. Let the matter come up after eight weeks enabling the Collector, Patna to file paragraph-wise reply of the writ petition. Learned State counsel shall ensure that the original files of Appeal No. 6 of 1996-97 and Appeal No. 2 of 1997-98 be also also with them on the next date of hearing to check the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second appeal was instituted on the suo motu action of the then Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barh, Patna

9. List this case on 06.04.2026.

(Rajiv Roy, J)

vinayak/-

U