IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23285 of 2018 ====================================================== Sita Devi W/o Tejo Mandal Resident of Village Ramoul, P.S- Hathori, District- Samstipur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar and Ors 2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur. 3. the Additional Collector Samastipur. 4. The Sub-Divisional Public Grievance, officer, Samastipur. 5. The Block Development Officer shivajee nagar Samstipur. 6. The Circle Officer shivajee Nagar, samastipur. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajour Ramvadrapur, Samastipur. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajour Ramvadrapur, Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr. Prasad. Gp14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 11-11-2025 Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s): for issuance of a writ / writs order / orders direction / directions including a writ in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the respondent to stop the construction work of P. C. C road in Khatiyani land of petitioner Situatu at Mauza Ramoul, Thana No. 28, Khata No. 15 Patna High Court CWJC No.23285 of 2018(3) dt.11-11-2025 2/2 Khesra No. 463 (old) and 1572 (new) Khata- 71 (old) 95 (new khesra) 249 (old) and 1580 (new) measuring an area- 1 Khata 2 dhoor. 3. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and learned State Counsel has taken this Court to paragraph 21 to show that the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Gauri Kant Gupta prior to sell of the land to him on 31.10.2008 actually donated the said land for construction of road on 10.08.2004. The paper has been annexed as Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. 4. The counter affidavit was served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner on 11.02.2020 and there is no rebuttal to it. 5. It seems the vendor of the petitioner concealed the said fact before the land was purchased by him in the year 2008. 6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court deems it appropriate that the case now needs to be consigned. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. Vijay Singh/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U