Patna High Court
Achyuta Nand Yadav @ Karu Mahto @ Achyuta … vs The State Of Bihar on 23 June, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13579 of 2017
======================================================
Achyuta Nand Yadav @ Achyuta Nand Singh Son of Late Baldeo Mahto,
Resident of Village and P.O.-Kumarpur. P.S.-Phulli Dumar, District-Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.
3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Banka, District-Banka,
4. The Circle Officer, Phulli Dumar, District-Banka,
5. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Son of Late Ugramohan Singh, Resident of Village
and P.O.-Kumarpur. P.S.-Phulli Dumar, District-Banka
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVIEW No. 165 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9607 of 1996
======================================================
Achyuta Nand Yadav @ Karu Mahto @ Achyuta Nand Singh Son of Late
Baldeo Yadav @ Baldeo Mahto Resident of Village- Kumar Pur, Police
Station- Phullidumar, District- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Anchal Adhikari, Sambhuganj, District- Banka.
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Banka.
4. The District Magistrate, Banka.
5. The Additional Collector, Banka.
6. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.
7. Most. Shanti Devi Wife of Late Ram Bilash Singh Resident of Village-
Kumarpur, Police Station- Fullidumar, District- Banka.
8. Tripurari Singh Son of Late Ram Bilash Singh Resident of Village-
Kumarpur, Police Station- Fullidumar, District- Banka.
9. Sujit Singh Son of Late Ram Bilash Singh Resident of Village- Kumarpur,
Police Station- Fullidumar, District- Banka.
10. Sadanand Yadav S/o Late Baldeo yadav @ Baldeo Mahto, Resident of
Village Kumarpur, P.S. Fulli Dumar, District- Banka.
11. Mostt. Chitralekha Devi d/o late baldeo Mahto Deceased, Wife of Late
Vishun Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village Khurd Kola, P.S. Jagdishpur,
District- Bhagalpur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
2/23
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13579 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy-GP-18
Mr. Vivekanand Singh, AC to GP-18
For the Private Respondent: Mr. Kumar Malendu, Advocate
Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVIEW No. 165 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam (AAG 12)
Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2025
Heard Mr. Rajesh Mohan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, learned GP-18 as also Mr.
Kumar Malendu representing respondent no. 5 beside Mrs.
Nutan Sahay, learned AC to AAG-12.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
"for issuance of writ in the nature of a
writ of certiorari for quashing of order and
judgment dated 28.08.2017 passed in BLT Case
No. 1189 of 2015 (Achyuta Nand Yadav @
Achyuta Nand Singh Versus The State of Bihar
and Others) by Mr. K.P. Ramaiah, Member
Administrative, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna by
which and whereunder the BLT Case no. 1189 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
3/23
2015 filed by the petitioner was dismissed with the
observation that I do not find any
illegality/irregularity in the impugned order
passed by the authorities below as mentioned in
Annexure-1 I therefore directed the authorities
below to ensure the compliance of the order
passed by the authority below not only with
respect to 0.3 decimals land but also 2.52 acres of
land over which the present petitioner and others
are such to be encroached', and for further
direction/directions, Relief/Reliefs in the facts and
circumstances of the case the petitioner may
entitled to."
3. The story of the present case dates back to the year
1959 (more than 65 years ago) when one Kapoori Mandal
alongwith other villagers preferred Title Suit No. 34 of 1959
against the grandfather of the petitioner before the Court of
Munsif, Banka praying therein that the villagers of Kumarpur
have customary and easementary rights to use 2.52 acres of
land covered by survey plot nos. 534 and 604 (Khata no. 72)
situated in the village Kumarpur in the district of Banka.
4. The suit was contested and decided in favour of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
4/23
the villagers and against the defendants (family of the
petitioner). The relevant paragraph read as follows:
"Ordered
that the suit be decreed on contest in
part with costs against defendants 1 st party and ex
parte without costs against the rest. Pleader's fee
Rs. 30/-. It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs
and the others inhabitants of village Kumarpur
have got right to use the disputed land specified in
Schedule A of the plaint for those public purposes
and they are entitled to recover possession of the
same for those public purpose. Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover Rs. 20/- as damages. The
defendants are permanently restrained from
interfering with the use of the disputed land by the
plaintiffs and other villagers of the village
Kumarpur."
5. The aforesaid order 22.12.1961 by the learned
Munsif (A.Heyat) is part of the counter-affidavit on behalf of
the respondent no. 5 as the petitioner has not annexed the same
in the main writ petition.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the grandfather of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
5/23
petitioner, Gaibi Mahton preferred Title Appeal No. 09 of
1962/13 of 1965. It came to be dismissed on 02.04.1965 by the
learned 1st Additional Sub-Judge (Md. Yusuf Hasan)
restraining them permanently from interfering with the rights
of the original plaintiff (Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit of
the respondent no. 5).
7. As the story unfolds, a Second Appeal No. 458 of
1965 was preferred against the said order which came to be
dismissed by the Patna High Court on 16.07.1980.
8. Still aggrieved, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No. 9063 of 1981 was preferred (Baldeo Mahto & Ors. Vs
Kapoori Mandal & Ors.). It is to be noted that Baldeo Mahto
is the father of the petitioner. The said appeal was dismissed as
not pressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 28.01.1985
(Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit of respondent no. 5). It is
further to be noted that the petitioner's family chose not to file
any review pursuant to the said Apex Court order.
9. The short order dated 28.01.1985 of the Hon'ble
Apex Court read as follows:
"The Special Leave Petition is
dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file
review before the High Court, if he
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
6/23
desires."
10. In that background, dust should have been settled
relating to the 2.52 acres of land, details of which has/have
been recorded above as the grandfather/father of the petitioner
lost the battle right from the Title Court up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court starting in the year 1959 and ending in the year
1985.
11. Instead, the family tried to start the matter afresh
and in the process, after having lost another round of battle
before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Banka in Case no.
38/90-91
vide on order dated 08.08.1990, an appeal was
preferred before the Additional Collector, Banka [(Appeal no.
38 of 1990-91) Baldeo Mahto vs. Ram Vilas Singh]. The
appeal was dismissed on 27.04.1994 (Annexure-L to the
counter-affidavit of the respondent no. 5).
12. Aggrieved, the petitioner’s father moved before
the Collector, Banka in Revision Case No. 17/94-95 which too
came to be dismissed vide an order dated 15.12.1994
(Annexure-M to the counter-affidavit of the respondent no. 5).
This followed Banka Revision Case no. 17/1994-95 which was
dismissed on 12.08.1996.
13. It seems that by that time, father of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
7/23
died and as such his mother, Most. Taro Devi preferred CWJC
No. 9607 of 1996 (Most. Taro Devi vs. State of Bihar &
Ors.) in which though earlier, the family of the petitioner
managed to get a stay, ultimately and two decades later, it was
dismissed by a Bench of this Court [Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Prabhat Kumar Jha (as his lordship then was)] and the order
dated 11.05.2018 records as follows:
“Heard both sides.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition
to quash the order dated 27.04.1994 passed by
Additional Collector in Misc. Appeal No.38/1990-
91, order dated 15.12.1994 passed by S.D.M.,
Banka, in Correction of Jamabandi Case
No.17/94-95, and the order dated 12.08.1996
passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur, passed in
Banka Revision Case No.17/94-95, by which the
prayer of the petitioner to mutate the name of the
petitioner with regard to Khata No.72, Khesra
No.534 and 604, measuring area 2.52 decimals
have been rejected.
The petitioner claimed the land on the
basis of registered kabuliyat and the Circle
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
8/23Officer also mutated the name of the petitioner
and issued rent receipts.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in the year 1982-83, rent receipts in
favour of the petitioner was stopped and the
petitioner filed petition before the Circle Officer
bearing Misc. Case No.3/86-87. The Circle
Officer recommended for issuance of rent receipts
in favour of the petitioner and sent the record to
the D.C.L.R. but the D.C.L.R. dismissed the
petition for non-prosecution on 08.08.1990
(Annexure-4). Thereafter the Additional Collector,
Sub Divisional Officer and the Commissioner vide
order as contained in Annexures-5, 6 and 7
dismissed the petition of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner claimed the land on the
basis of registered kabuliyat but it appears that
when the name of the petitioner was mutated, the
villagers filed Title Suit No.34/1959 in the court of
Munsif and the Munsif found that the nature of
land is gair majarua aam and the land of Khata
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
9/23No.72, Khesra No.534 and 604 measuring area
2.52 decimals is in the use of common villagers.
The petitioner filed appeal against the judgment
and decree passed by Munsif in T.S. No.34/1959
and the same was dismissed. The petitioner again
filed Second appeal before the High Court and
S.L.P. before the Apex Court, which were also
dismissed. In pursuance thereof, during the
Consolidation proceeding, the nature of the land
was mentioned as Gair Majarua Aam.
Learned counsel for the respondents
also submits that the petitioner has lost the case
in all the courts. Very recently, thepetitioner lost
the case in B.L.T.
Considering the fact that the dispute has
been settled by the Civil Court with regard to
nature of land and the Jamabandi standing in the
name of the petitioner has already been cancelled,
I find no merit in this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed."
14. In the meantime, the petitioner came into the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
10/23shoes of his mother after her death and preferred LPA No. 856
of 2018 against the Writ Court’s order which was dismissed by
a Division Bench headed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice on
09.12.2019.
15. Still aggrieved, SLA (C) No. 8907 of 2020 was
preferred in which the petitioner after some argument sought
permission to withdraw the said petition with liberty to prefer
review. It was withdrawn on 17.11.2020 with liberty to follow
Review.
16. This followed Civil Review No. 165 of 2021
which is presently tagged with the writ petition.
17. Having recorded the facts of the case and the two
attempts of the petitioner’s family/petitioner to get hold of the
2.52 acres of land, though unsuccessful; the Court now takes
into account the present prayer in the writ petition which is
against the order and judgment dated 28.08.2017 passed in
BLT Case No. 1189 of 2015 (Achyuta Nand Yadav vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors.) in which the Bihar Land Tribunal,
Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide a
reasoned order dated 28.08.2017 dismissed the petition of the
petitioner.
18. Paragraph-5 of the order is relevant which read
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
11/23as follows:
“5. The present dispute is regarding
correction of Jamabandi with respect to the land
of C.S. Khat No. 72, C.S. Plot no. 534 and 604
area 1.99 acres and 53 decimals total area 2.52
acres situated in village Kumarpur, Thanka No.
175, District- Banka formally Bhagalpurpur as
well land of Khata No.326, Plot no. 326 area 3
decimals in the record of old C.S. C.S. Survey the
land is recorded as Gairamajarua Malik Parti
Kadim and the Revisional Survey same has been
recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar. The originally
the father of the present petitioner Baldeo Mahto
was claiming for correction of Jamabadni and to
issue rent receipt thereof in his name of the basis
of a illegal of Kabuliat alleged to have been
executed on 15.12.1950 by Late Baldeo Mahto the
land under dispute is for the use of public in
general of the village Kumarput where the land is
situated since the time of immemorial and
villagers have acquired their prescriptive right as
well as customary and easemantary right with
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
12/23greedy eye to grab the land and to deprive the
villagers, petitioner father Late Baldoe Mahto got
a collusive deed of Kabuliat which is allege to
have executed on 15.12.1950 by the Late Baldoe
Mahto himself in favour of Kamleshwari
Choudhary the shebait of the Ex-landlord in
collusion with each other and the same is alleged
to have duly registered on 18.12.1950 both the
parties were agreed to do Panchayati and they
have given written consent agreement for
Panchayati and accordingly on 30.07.1953
punches decided that only 17 khatas will be given
to the Baldoe Mahto from the land of plot no.534
and remaining land will be for the purpose of the
use of public in general of the village as they are
using form time immemorial the punches
communicated third consented decision of
Panchayati dated 30.7.1953 to then Ex landlord
and accordingly at the time vesting Zamindari in
the name of the father of petitioner with respect to
the lands of 17 katha only. On 14.09.1957 the
father of the petitioner reopened closed chapter of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
13/23this dispute and field a petition before he circle
officer for correction of Jamabandi in his name of
the basis of alleged Kabuliat and it was numbered
as case no. 6 of 1957-58. Thereafter villager
Kapuri Mandal along with other have field the
Title Suit no.34/1959 for declaration of the
alleged deed of Kabuliat dated 18.12.1950 is
collusive, fraudulent, null and void and also for
declaration that the villagers have got their right
by prescription and easementary right to use the
entire land of khata no.72 plot no.534 and 604
total area 2.52 Acres that the petitioner and other
are encroaches over the said 2.52 acres of land
and their Zamabandis relating to the said 2.52
Acres of land has already been cancelled by the
competent authorities under the Act. The
Judgment Civil Court passed in Title Suit
No.34/1954 (Kapuri Mandal and others v/s Gaibi
Mahton and others) passed on 22.12.1961. In the
said Title Suit, No.34/1959 (Kapuri Mandal and
others v/s Gaibi Mahton and others) passed on
22.12.1961. In the said Title Suit, suit of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
14/23plaintiffs-villagers of concerned village was
allowed and the ancestor of the present petition
lost that Title Suit. The Decree of the said Title
Suit was affirmed in Title Appeal
No.9/1962/13/1965 and Second Appeal
No.458/1965 and up to Supreme Court vide S.L.A
No.9063/1981. In that suit not only the right, title
interest and possession of the ancestor of the
present petitioner was disbelieved but also their
claim on the basis of alleged Hukumnama was
also found false and fabricated. The petitioner has
not brought any material before this court to
controvert the finding made by the authorities
below relating to the aforesaid 2.52 Acers of land
over which he along with other villagers have
encroached upon the same. The counsel for the
opposite parties submitted a judgment of the
Patna High Court reported in 1999(3)PLIR 812
(Manoj Kumar) holding that no piece of land of
Garmajarua Aam / khas land can be settled by the
Zamindar in derogation of the right of the general
public. In view of the above, I do not find any
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
15/23illegality/irregularity in the impugned order
passed by the authorities below as mentioned
Annexure-1 therefore directed the authorities
below to ensure the compliance of the order
passed by the authorities below not only with
respect to 0.3 decimals land but also 2.52 Acres of
land over which the present petitioner and others
are such to be encroached. Since it is continuing
wrong and the petitioner has not obeyed the
orders of the authority below, hence it is directed
to Circle Officer, Fullidumar/ D.C.L.R., Banka to
ensure the compliance. These applications are
accordingly dismissed.”
19. For the record, this Court incorporates that the
respondent no. 5 preferred a petition vide BLDR Case No. 30
of 2014-15 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Banka
against the petitioner when he tried to disturb 0.03 decimal of
his land in Khata no. 326 Khesra no. 326. It was then that the
entire story came to light that the petitioner’s family/petitioner
have lost the battle twice upto the Hon’ble Apex Court but are
still holding 2.52 Acres of land. It accordingly directed the
Circle Office, Fullidumar to take into account the entire facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
16/23
of the case and get the lands measured.
20. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred
Miscellaneous (Land Dispute) Appeal No. 98 of 2014-15
(Achyuta Nand Yadav vs State of Bihar & Ors.) before the
Court of Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur which
took into account the entire facts and dismissed the appeal on
05.08.2015 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition).
21. Still aggrieved, the petitioner moved before ‘the
Tribunal’ in BLT Case No. 1189 of 2015 (Achyuta Nand
Yadav & Ors.) which, as recorded above came to be
dismissed on 28.08.2017.
22. This followed CWJC No. 13579 of 2017 which
was heard by a Bench of this Court on 21.09.2017 and while
issuing notice to the respondent no. 5 and directing the State to
file counter-affidavit within six weeks, the operation of the
order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the Member
(Administrative), Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in BLT case
no. 1189 of 2015 was stayed.
23. Number of years have passed since then and if
the first Title Suit of 1959 is taken into account, sixty six long
years (six decades) have passed with the original order having
come in to existence in the year of 1961 and the same has not
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
17/23
still been implemented and the petitioner’s family/petitioner by
hook or by crook are enjoying the fruits of the said land.
24.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is a 2014 resolution of the Government of Bihar that if
the receipts are being granted in favour of any person, the
same has to be validated.
25. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to
impress upon this Court that he being in possession of the land
for so many decades, now has accrued the right to continue
with the aforesaid land. In support of his case, learned counsel
for the petitioner relies on the judgment of LPA No. 1696 of
2014 (The State of Bihar & Ors vs. Harendra Nath Tiwari)
reported in (2015) 1 PLJR 606 and relevant part read as
follows:
Sri Mritunjay Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C.-23, for
the appellants, submits that the suo motu power
conferred under Section 9 of the Act can be
exercised at any point of time, if the circumstances
permit and that the view taken by the learned
Single Judge cannot be sustained in law.
The Jamabandi in question has taken place way
back in 1946. The District Collector initiated
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
18/23proceedings in relation to that and passed an
order dated 26.02.2013/23.07.2013 cancelling the
same. At the outset, we fail to understand as to
how there can be two dates for one order.
Assuming, one of the dates becomes relevant for
the proceeding, it is clear that the first appellant
passed the said order in exercise of power under
Section 9 of the Act.
The illegality on the part of the first appellant, i.e.
Collector, Siwan, was so patent that, once the writ
petition was filed challenging his order, he
realised the mistake committed by him and has
passed another order dated 30th December, 2013
withdrawing his earlier order. However, his
determination to tinker with the matter did not
stop at that. He virtually exhorted the Additional
Collector, i.e. the second appellant, to initiate
proceedings for cancellation of the Jamabandi.
The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that
even suo motu proceedings albeit by the
competent authority cannot be initiated at this
length of time and the only remedy available to
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
19/23the Government, if at all, is to file a suit. We are
totally in agreement with the view expressed by
the learned Single Judge.
We also take serious exception to the manner in
which the District Collector dealt with the matter.
Firstly, he passed an order without verifying
whether he has jurisdiction. Once, he realised that
he did not have jurisdiction, he virtually exhorted
the Additional Collector, i.e. the second appellant,
to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of the
Jamabandi. This is nothing but usurpation of the
jurisdiction or an attempt to influence an inferior
officer. When statutory power is conferred upon a
particular authority, it is for him to decide
whether or not exercise that power. Merely
because an officer happens to be the superior in
the hierarchy, he cannot issue direction to another
for initiation of proceedings.
Further, the suo motu powers, whenever
conferred, are required to be exercised within a
reasonable time. Such a power cannot be taken
recourse to, unsettle the things which have
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
20/23assumed finality over the decades, in the instant
case, more seven decades. Another important
aspect is that the Act came into force in the year
2011; whereas the Jamabandi was of the year
1946. Valuable rights accrued to the parties and
they cannot be unsettled nearly after three
generations. There was no allegation of fraud, at
any point of time. Viewed from that angle, we are
not inclined to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we dismiss this
Letters Patent Appeal.
Interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”
26. Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned State counsel on
the other hand, refutes the said claim and submits that the
respondents were taking all the steps for cancellation of the
‘Jamabandi’ but with the help of different litigations, the
petitioner/his family kept on taking stay after suppressing the
facts of the case which continued in the present case also untill
the respondent no.5 arrived at the scene and presented another
side of the story.
27. The respondent no. 5 has put in his appearance
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
21/23
through Mr. Kumar Malendu and in continuation of the
submissions of the learned State counsel, he has narrated the
entire story which has further clarified the position. He submits
that the said resolution of the State of Bihar and/or the case
law nowhere comes to the rescue of the petitioner inasmuch as
it is not the case of the petitioner that he continued with the
‘Jamabandi’ rather the petitioner/his family deliberately and
suppressing the facts repeatedly took stay in matter, earlier in
the first writ petition which ultimately was dismissed and later
in the present writ petition and as such, he cannot hide in the
garb of said resolution.
28. Learned counsel further submits that the facts of
this case is entirely different from the judgment rendered in the
State of Bihar (supra) case inasmuch as it has already been
recorded that in both the writ petitions, they managed stay by
suppressing the facts and thus it cannot be in any way come to
rescue of the petitioner.
29. This Court having recorded the entire facts in
earlier paragraphs observes that the case is that the Title suit
was decided way back in the year 1961 (22.12.1961) in Title
Suit No. 34 of 1959 against the petitioner’s family members.
They went in appeal, Second Appeal and ultimately before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
22/23
Hon’ble Apex Court losing battles everywhere. Though, they
withdrew the petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court taking
liberty to file review in the earlier occassion, it was never filed
and went for another round of litigation and after losing
everywhere filed CWJC No. 9607 of 1996 which came to be
dismissed on 11.05.2018. LPA preferred against the order was
dismissed on 09.13.2019 and the SLA(C) No. 8907 of 2020
too was dismissed on 17.11.2020 though granting liberty to
prefer review petition which followed the Civil Review No.
165 of 2024.
30. So far as the order of (The State of Bihar & Ors
vs. Harendra Nath Tiwari) (supra) cited by the petitioner is
concerned, as rightly pointed by the learned State counsel, it in
no way comes to his rescue as in this case, the
petitioner/family member, by suppressing the entire facts, filed
writ petitions, took stay and thus they cannot now take the plea
that with the passage of so much time, rights have accrued
upon them. In the case of State of Bihar (supra), the Hon’ble
Court noted that there is no allegation of fraud. Here the story
is quite different. The petitioner’s family/petitioner continuously
suppressed the material facts and in the process managed to take
stay repeatedly and thereafter deliberately allowed the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2017 dt.23-06-2025
23/23
case to linger. The said contention is accordingly rejected.
31. Having heard the parties and perusing the records
and further after incorporating the entire facts, this Court is of
the opinion that the time has now come to consign the files
with the dismissal of both the CWJC No. 13579 of 2017 and
C. Rev. No. 165 of 2021.
32. Accordingly ordered. The writ petition bearing
CWJC No. 13579 of 2017 (Achyuta Nand Yadav @
Achyuta Nand Singh vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) as also
C. Rev. No. 165 of 2021 (Achyuta Nand Yadav @ Achyuta
Nand Singh vs. the State of Bihar) are hereby dismissed. No
cost.
33. The stay order dated 21.09.2017 granted by the
Coordinate Bench stands vacated.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 26.06.2025 Transmission Date