✦ Patna High Court

Naznin Khatoon @ Najnin Khatoon v. The State of Bihar

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 7482 of 2022SANDEEP KUMAR2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

petition is allowed

Judgment

4.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners For the Respondents : :

Mr. Md. Ataul Haque, Advocate Mr. Raj Kishore Roy (GP18) Ms. Surekha Kumari, AC to GP 18 Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate For the Vigilance ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR : 4 19-12-2022 Heard the parties. ORAL ORDER The following statement has been made in the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 as follows:-

4. That the registration of 15.625 decimal land of Mauza Basantpur, Circle Office- Arrah bearing Revenue Thana no. 256, survey Khata No. 76 and Khesra No. 708 has been added to prohibitory list in the light of Memo No.1588 dated 20.09.2017 issued under the signature of D.S.P Special Vigilance Unit in 2017 wherein it has been stated that the said land is involved in case no. 01 of 2015 instituted under section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) P.C Act, 1988, so stop the registration of above mentioned land. Here, it is pertinent to state that neither Collector who is the competent authority to delete any entry from the prohibitory list nor District Sub-Registrar has been made party to the writ by the petitioner, instead Patna High Court CWJC No.7482 of 2022(4) dt.19-12-2022 D.S.P and S.P of Special Vigilance Unit, Bihar, Patna have been made parties to the writ with request to quash the Memo No. 588 dated 20.09.2017 of the Special Vigilance Unit. Hence, D.S.P and S.P of Special Vigilance Unit should be asked to submit their statement of fact regarding this writ.

In view of the statement of the Vigilance that transfer of the land has been illegally stopped by the authorities, they are directed to transfer the land as per wishes of the petitioner and register the sale deed. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is allowed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Harsh/ BT U

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Patna High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 7482 of 2022). ← Search more judgments