LAWS(PAT)-2023-10-59

RANJAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On October 07, 2023
RANJAN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of present writ application, has challenged the order, dtd. 9/7/2021, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura, by which in the light of the order, dtd. 28/11/2016, passed in Case No. 832M of 2013, deputed the Circle Officer, Sheikhpura, as Magistrate, to ensure Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1064 of 2021 dt.7/10/2023 law and order situation, at the time of construction of boundary wall upon the subject land by the respondent no. 7, namely, Hargouri Mahto. The Station House Officer, Sheikhpura Police Station, was also directed to depute the police force in order to provide necessary help for construction of the boundary wall.

(2.) The relevant facts, culled out from the statement made on behalf of the parties, is that the disputed land was recorded in the name of one Tuna Mahto, having a total area of 85 decimals, situated at Village Jamalpur, Thana No. 167, Khata No. 13, Khesra No. 159. The only son of Tuna Mahto, namely, Ganauri Mahto, sold the land in question to one Barkatullah on 25/3/1932. On 1/3/1946 and 12/3/1948, said Barkatullah sold the entire land of 85 decimals to one Somari Devi, who happened to be the maternal grand mother of respondent no. 7. On 25/6/1954, Somari Devi sold 16.5 decimals out of the 85 decimals to one Budhan Mahto, who was the son of Ganauri Mahto. Somari Devi was thus left with only 68.5 decimals of land. On 14/7/1964, Somari Devi executed a registered deed of gift for 68 decimals of land in favour of her only daughter, namely, Parwati Devi, the mother of respondent no. 7. On 12/2/1981, Budhan Mahto sold 7 decimals of land out of 16.5 decimals of land to Naresh Prasad. Thereafter, Budhan Mahto was left with only 9.5 decimals of land, Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1064 of 2021 dt.7/10/2023 but as per the case of the parties, he was in possession of 10 decimals of land.

(3.) The petitioner claims the entire land as his ancestral property; whereas the respondent no. 7 claims title and possession through his mother to the extent of 68 decimals of land, gifted to her mother by her maternal grandmother.