IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.14826 OF 2010 RATNESHWAR PRASAD PATHAK @ RATNESHWAR PATHAK, SON OF LATE JAMUNA PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJHWARI, POLICE STATION SIMRI, DISTRICT BUXAR ………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE –CUM- COLLECTOR, BUXAR 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BUXAR 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, DUMRAON, BUXAR 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SIMRI, DISTRICT BUXAR 6. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, SIMRI, POLICE STATION SIMRI, DISTRICT BUXAR 7. LAL SAHAB YADAV, SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJHWARI, POLICE STATION SIMARI, DISTRICT BUXAR ………………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******* 3 08/11/2010 In this case, notices were issued to respondent no. 7, who had appeared through the Counsel. Nobody has appeared in this Court to represent respondent no. 7. The land in question is the ancestral property of the petitioner and his family members. Apparently, the case of the petitioner is that by family arrangement, the lands were allotted to his father. The uncle of the petitioner, namely, Laxmi Narayan Pathak sold the lands to the father of respondent no. 7, namely, Raghunath Yadav. Raghunath Yadav challenged the order dated 25th July, 1997 passed in Revision Case No. 165 of 1988 claiming that the order of the Joint Director, Consolidation was unwarranted and should be set aside. 2 The Court while hearing the writ application has found that the private respondent is claiming the lands through a sale deed executed by Laxmi Narayan Pathak without any permission under Section 5 of the Consolidation Act. As such the Court granted relief to Raghunath Pathak to get a fresh sale deed executed in his favour and thereafter approach the appropriate Courts. Apparently, this was not done. Raghunath Yadav also filed CWJC No. 8205 of 2007, which was disposed of on 10.02.2009. In the said writ application, the order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Collector, Buxar in Case No. 61 of 2000 under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act was under challenge. Raghunath Yadav withdrew the writ application with liberty to file a civil suit. According to the petitioner, the heirs of Raghunath Yadav or for that matter, Raghunath Yadav has not instituted any civil suit. The obvious result of the aforesaid litigation is that the petitioner in whose favour there is an order of mutation by the Circle Officer/ the Collector/the Joint Director, Consolidation is in possession over the lands in question. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no. 7 is disturbing the possession of the petitioner and creating problems over the lands in question. 3 A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that 107 proceedings has been initiated against respondent no. 7 as well as the petitioner. It has further been stated that on 01.10.2010, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumraon has taken steps under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also directed the respondent no. 7 to maintain law & order. This Court finds that the State is taking steps to protect the interest of the petitioner. Obviously, in view of the various orders of different Courts and the High Court, the respondent no. 7 would have no right left over the lands in question. Since the State is taking adequate steps to protect the interests of the petitioner, no further order is required to be passed. The petitioner may present a copy of this order before the State Authorities as and when required. This application is accordingly disposed of. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )