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