Ainul Mian v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ application is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
10. Krishan Sah, Son of Badri Sah, Resident of Village- Baswaria, P.O.- Parsauni, P.S.- Chautarwa, District- West Champaran.
11. Chunnu Sah, Son of Late Chandrika Das, Resident of Village- Baswaria, P.O.- Parsauni, P.S.- Chautarwa, District- West Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA Mr. Alok Kumar Alok Mr. K.K. Singh, AC to GP-22 : : 3 04-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and ORAL ORDER learned AC to GP-22 for the State.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, at the outset, submits that petitioners have rushed to this Patna High Court CWJC No.12585 of 2024(3) dt.04-08-2025 Court against the order passed by the Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah by which settlement made in favour of the petitioners in the Year 1992 by the DCLR/SDO in Settlement Case No. 11 of 1992-93 (LR 177/1992-93) by an order dated
08.05.1992/15.07.1992 has been cancelled on the ground that the land in dispute is Gairmazarua-Aam land and it is the State Government, who is competent to settle such land. It is next submitted that the petitioners are not landless persons rather have land measuring 06 acres as would manifest from the order dated 06.02.2024 contained in Memo No.519 passed by the Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah in Settlement Cancellation Case No.446 of 2012-13, recorded based on the submission made by the private respondents. It is further submitted that petitioners in the writ application though claims to be a landless persons, but then, have not specifically rebutted that petitioners do not have land measuring 06 acres, as such, the pleading that petitioners are landless persons is an evasive pleading. It is also submitted that petitioners have an alternative remedy against the order impugned, but then, instead of availing the alternative remedy, the petitioners have directly moved before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is an extraordinary and a discretionary jurisdiction. Patna High Court CWJC No.12585 of 2024(3) dt.04-08-2025
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, but then, submits that though the order impugned records that petitioners have land measuring 06 acres, but then, petitioners are landless person though it has not been specifically rebutted in the writ application, but then, are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that petitioners have alternative remedy against the order impugned in the instant writ application, as such, the Court finds no merit in the writ application as petitioners have rushed to this Court without availing their alternative remedy.
Operative part
The writ application is dismissed.
However, the dismissal order would not preclude the petitioners from availing their alternative remedy against the order impugned in the instant writ application in accordance with law. Rishabh/- U (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.