SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Lallan Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors – Respondent
CR. WJC 1936/2017



Advocates:
['Vikas Ratan Bharti', '', 'Rajeev Ranjan', 'SHASHI KANT AMAR', 'LALIT KISHORE AG']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1936 of 2017

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- Patna

======================================================

Lallan Prasad Singh S/o Late Mohabat Singh, R/o Village- Kisanpur, P.S.-

Bikram, District- Rohtas, Presently Residing at Saidpur Kurji. Kothiya, P.O.-

Sadakat Ashram, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar

2.

Director General Zone, Bihar , Patna.

3.

D.I.G. Patna Zone, Bihar, Patna.

4.

Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.

5.

Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Patna, Bihar.

6.

Dy. Superintendent of Police, Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.

7.

Officer In Charge, Digha Police Station, Patna, Bihar.

8.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.

9.

Indradeo Rai, S/o Late Dwarka Rai,

10.

Bindeshwari Prasad, S/o Dwarka Rai,

11.

Tej Narayan S/o Munshi Rai,

12.

Shashi Rai S/o Hari Kishun Rai, All R/o at Saidpur Kurji, Kothiya, P.O.-

Sadakat Ashram, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna.

... ... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Kumar Shanu, AC to AG

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

2

28-11-2022

Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Kumar Shanu, learned AC to AG for the State.

Petitioner in the present writ application is seeking

the following reliefs:-

“ i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/

direction to the respondent 1st set to provide

adequate security and safety to the petitioner in

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1936 of 2017(2) dt.28-11-2022

2/5

getting the boundary wall of his land done,

appertaining to Khata No. 1477, Plot no. 5165, 5167

measuring an area of 30 decimal situated under the

Digha Police Station.

ii) To issue an appropriate writ/ order /

direction to the respondent 1st set to restrain the

respondent no. 2nd set from disturbing the petitioner

in construction of the boundary wall of the plot

belonging to the petitioner.

iii) To any other relief or reliefs for which

the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and

circumstances of the case.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is the owner of a piece of land appertaining to Khata

No. 1477, Plot no. 5165, 5167 measuring an area of 30 decimal

situated under the Digha Police Station in the district of Patna. It

is stated that the petitioner purchased this land in the year 1978

from one Kailash Rai.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when

the petitioner started raising boundary wall on the land and he

had completed only one portion thereof, the respondent 2nd set

raised a dispute. It is stated that at one stage after purchase of

the land by the petitioner in the year 1978, the Jamabandi of the

said land was canceled by the then Circle Officer, Patna Sadar

in the year 1979. The matter was contested before the Deputy

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1936 of 2017(2) dt.28-11-2022

3/5

Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) and the Commissioner.

Finally, this petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5995

of 1994 against the order of the DCLR and the Commissioner.

The writ application was allowed vide order dated 18.11.1994

and the order of cancellation of Jamabandi and other orders

passed by the various authorities were quashed. Learned counsel

for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the petitioner has valid

right, title and possession over the land in question but because

of the Respondent 2nd set who are anti-social elements and have

nefarious design to extort money from the petitioner are not

allowing the petitioner to enjoy this piece of land.

Learned counsel has further pointed out that earlier

145 Cr.P.C. proceeding was also initiated, in the said

proceeding, father of the petitioner was arrayed as an opposite

party but

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top