IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3772 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11017 of 2024 ====================================================== Lilanath Jha, S/o Achchut Nath Jha, resident of Ward No. 2, Bargouriya, Udaypurbithuar, P.O.- Udaypur Bathuar, P.S.- Paudaul, District- Madhubani- 847231. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Mr. Deepak Kumar Additional Chief Secretary cum Principal Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary cum Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, District Collector, Madhubani. 4. Mr. Sushil Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Madhubani. 5. Mr. Purshottam Kumar, Circle Officer, Pandaul, District-Madhubani. 6. Md. Nadeem, Station House Officer, Pandaul, Madhubani. 7. Most. Kaushalya Devi, W/o Late Rameshwar Mehtar, r/o-Bargouriya, Udaypurbithuar, P.O.-Udaypur Bathuar, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani, 847231. 8. Bindu Devi, W/o Ashok Mehtar, r/o-Bargouriya, Udaypurbithuar, P.O.- Udaypur Bathuar, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani, 847231. 9. Nirmla Devi, W/o Vijay Mehtar, r/o-Bargouriya, Udaypurbithuar, P.O.- Udaypur Bathuar, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani, 847231. 10. Manju Devi, W/o Asharfi Mehtar, r/o-Bargouriya, Udaypurbithuar, P.O.- Udaypur Bathuar, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani, 847231. 11. Poonam Devi, w/o Papu Mehtar, r/o-Bargouriya, Udaypurbithuar, P.O.- Udaypur Bathuar, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani, 847231. 12. Fuleshwari Devi, W/o Kapileshwar Mehtar, r/o-Bargouriya, Udaypurbithuar, P.O.-Udaypur Bathuar, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani, 847231. 13. Geeta Devi, W/o Color Mehtar, r/o-Bargouriya, Udaypurbithuar, P.O.- Udaypur Bathuar, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani, 847231. 14. Punam Devi, W/o Papu Mehtar, r/o-Bargouriya, Udaypurbithuar, P.O.- Udaypur Bathuar, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani, 847231. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Standing Counsel 25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR Patna High Court MJC No.3772 of 2024(6) dt.03-07-2026 2/3 ORAL ORDER 6 03-07-2026 Learned Advocate for the respective parties are present. 2. By the order under contempt, while disposing the writ petition this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11017 of 2024 has directed as follows: “5. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the materials brought on record by the petitioner that the private respondents are making construction over the land in question, it would be apt and prudent for the Circle Officer, Pandaul to take up Basgit Parcha Case No. 86- 92/2011-12 and dispose of the same expeditiously by giving proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 3. A show-cause affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 3 and 5 and it is submitted that the Circle Officer, Pandaul after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned passed the final order on 15.01.2025 in Basgit Parcha Case No. 86-92/2011-12 and thereby recommended for cancellation of Basgit Parcha of two Parcha Holders, namely, Phuleshwari Devi, wife of Kapleshwar Mehtar Patna High Court MJC No.3772 of 2024(6) dt.03-07-2026 3/3 and Manju Devi, wife of Asharfi Mehtar and the rest of the Basgit Parcha with respect to the land, in question, in the name of remaining Parcha holder was found valid. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, at this juncture, submits that despite the direction of this Court to give proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the same has been denied and in fact the petitioner has never been noticed, though the order says otherwise. 5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the Circle Officer, Pandaul has passed the order, this Court does not find any reason to continue with the present proceeding. 6. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands closed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the order, if so advised. uday/- (Harish Kumar, J) U