Patna High Court
Surendra Poddar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 January, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13757 of 2018
======================================================
Surendra Poddar Son of Deven Poddar, R/o Village- Durgapur, P.S.-
Durgapur, District- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Collector, Madhepura.
3. The D.C.L.R. Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura.
4. The Additional Collector, Madhepura.
5. Circle Officer, Puraini Prakhand, Puraini Bazar Anchal Udakishunganj,
District- Madhepura.
6. Kameshwar Singh, Son of Late Janglee Singh, Vill.- Puraini Ambho Basa,
Janglee Tola, P.S. and Circle- Puraini, District- Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Mukund, Adev.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raj Kishore Roy -GP 18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-01-2025
On 26.11.2024 this Court haad passed the following
detailed order :
“None appears for the petitioner.
In the instant petition, the petitioner has
prayed for following relief(s):-
“For directing the
respondent public authorities not to
meddle with the creation of
Jamabandi as also the title and
possession over the land in question
being described in the paragraph
Patna High Court CWJC No.13757 of 2018 dt.03-01-2025
2/4below by a writ of certiorari or by any
other appropriate writ or direction as
also restrain the private respondent
from laying false claim over the land
as bataidar which has been decided in
the order of the Ld. D.C.L.R.,
Udakishunganj dated 21.10.1992 in
Β.Τ. Act Case No. 82/91-92 and also
dated 13.04.1994.”
2. From perusal of the records, the land
appertaining to khata no. 269 and 385, Khesra
No. 324, 327, 328, 329, 332, 331, 372, area 3
bighas, 10 kathas and 40 dhurs situated at
Mauza Durgapur belongs to the petitioner.
Respondent no. 6 filed BT Act Case No. 82/91-
92 before the DCLR, Udakishunganj under
section 48(E) of the B.T. Act, which was allowed
ex parte vide order dated 13.04.1994 and
respondent no. 6 was declared as Bataidar.
Against the said order, petitioner filed B.T.
Appeal No. 24-25/2005 before the Additional
Collector, Madhubani which was dismissed and
the order passed by the DCLR has been
confirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.13757 of 2018 dt.03-01-2025
3/4
that without approaching the appropriate
authority for redressal of his grievance, the
petitioner has directly approached this court
in its writ jurisdiction.
4. List this matter on 03.12.2024.
5. If the petitioner fails to appear on the next
date of hearing, the matter would be decided with
the material available records for the reasons that
the present matter is pending consideration for the
last about six years.
6. Learned counsel for the State is directed
to clarify with regard to averments made in para
5 of the counter affidavit as the same is quite
vague.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly
submitted that petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy
available under the law against the order passed by the
Additional Collector, Madhepura
3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that
without exhausting the remedy available, petitioner has directly
rushed to this Court in its writ jurisdiction, and as such, the
present writ petition is not maintainable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13757 of 2018 dt.03-01-2025
4/4
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, the
present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
to approach the authority concerned for redressal of his
grievance, which has been raised by the petitioner in the present
writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The concerned authority is
directed to consider and dispose of the grievance of the
petitioner after giving him due opportunity, expeditiously,
within a reasonable period.
It is needless to mention that the period spent in
pursuing the matter before this court be considered
sympathetically while deciding the claim of the petitioner.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
mcverma/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 04.01.2025 Transmission Date N/A