IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5056 of 2010 1. Chandra Shekhar Sah S/O Late Ramjee Sah R/O Village - Sakirna , Kusheshwar Asthan, P.O + P.S - Kusheshwar Asthan, District - Darbhanga. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 3. The Block Development Officer Kusheshwar Asthan, Darbhanga 4. Shambhu Sah S/O Ramdeo Sah R/O Village - Sakirna , P.O + P.S - Kusheshwar Asthan, District - Darbhanga. 5. Maheshwari Sah, S/O Ghuran Sah, R/O Village - Sakirna , P.O + P.S - Kusheshwar Asthan, District - Darbhanga. ----------- 2 12.07.2011 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Junior Counsel to Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.6 for the State and Mr. Gajendra Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The contention of the petitioner is that whereas a piece of land bearing Khata No. 276 Plot No. 1085 (old) measuring 3 katha was donated by one Bipin Kumar Jha for construction of a school but his son Hirendra Kumar Jha has transferred the same in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, fraudulently. The writ petition has been preferred by a villager questioning the sale deed of transfer executed by Hirendra Kumar Jha in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner a local villager states that as the said piece of land had already been transferred in favour of the State Government for construction of the school, the subsequent transfer is not proper. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and in which it is stated that the school is situated on 3 kathas of land pertaining to the same Plot No. 1085 on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 23.2.1973 executed by one Dhodhai Sah. It is contended 2 that the gift deed which is placed at Annexure-1 of the writ petition is a forged piece of document and that the land owner Hirendra Kumar Jha under a valid registered sale deed dated 8.2.2003 has sold a separate portion of plot No. 1085 measuring 3 kathas in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Apart from the fact that the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts another relevant factor is that there is complete absence of locus on part of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. On either counts the writ petition cannot be entertained and it is accordingly dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)