Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DAILYLAW 1998 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors

CWJC/11825/2018 · 2026-02-27

Rajiv Roy

body2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11825 of 2018 ====================================================== Anil Kumar Rai Son of Late Uma Kant Rai, resident of Village- Chunapur, P.S. K. Nagar, District Purnia. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Purnia 3. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Purnia. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnia. 5. The Circle Officer, K.Nagar, P.S.- K. Nagar, District Purnia. 6. Sri Sundar Kant Jha son of Late Chitra Rekha Dai @ Late Chitra Rekha Devi, Wife of Baijnath Jha at present residing at Village- Rasodh, P.S. Banmankhi, District Purnia. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 4 27-02-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s): “for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for Setting aside the Purnia Gazette Notification No. 2776 dated 24.07.1990 published under Section 15 (1) of the Land Ceiling Act and exclude the land of the petitioner from the Gazette Notification. The land purchase by the petitioner has been sold by the land holder prior Patna High Court CWJC No.11825 of 2018(4) dt.27-02-2026 2/2 to 9.7.1970 and some of the land had been purchased in execution of a decree and Judgment passed in T.S No. 90 of 1972, Suit for Specific Performance of Contract, Judgment dated 30.04.1973 passed against the land holder respondent No. 6 who executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 19/5/1977 and the same be included under Section 9(2) of the Land Ceiling Act in the share unit of the land holder.” 3. It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the sole petitioner is no more and as such, liberty be granted to legal heirs to approach afresh if he/she/they so want. 4. The State has no objection. 5. In that background, granting said liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U