BINAY KR.CHOUBEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent no. 5 though name of the counsel Mr. Upendra Prasad appears in the list.

(2.) Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 31.1.1989/1.2.1989 passed by respondent no. 2. in Consolidation Revision Case No. 2752 of 1987. He also wants quashing of the order dated 17.9.1987 passed by respondent no. 3 in Appeal Case No. 62/215 of 1985 -86. The two impugned orders are Annexures -9 and 10 to the writ application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner States that the present dispute relates to a plot of land measuring .11 acres and situate in Mouza Belhar, Thana No. 7/1 New Khata No. 1186, new Khesra No. 1326. This corresponds to old Khata No. 151, Old Khesra No. 676. According to the petitioner the land in question originally was recorded in the revenue records in the name of one Ram Narayan Bhagat. By virtue of two registered sale deeds dated 19.1.1975 and 7.2.1975 bearing Kebala Nos. 1628 and 2552 respectively purchased 11.5 decimals of land from the said Ram Narayan Bhagat. He was recorded tenant of the land in question and the requisite jamabandi was recorded in his name for a long period of time.