IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17499 of 2016 ====================================================== Dinesh Paswan Son of Sri Yugeshwar Paswan Resident of Village-Bari Kothiya, P.S.- Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and land Reform Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 5. The Deputy Collector Land Reform, District- Muzaffarpur. 6. Circle Officer, Mushahari Block, District- Muzaffarpur. 7. Officer-in-charge of Mushahari Police Station, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan-SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 04-08-2025 Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s): “(i) for directing the respondents to give the possession over the land situated at Rohua Aapucch bearing Khata no. 267, Khesara no. 2475/6 bearing its area 0.10 decimal, which has been given to the petitioner by the competent authority through Basgit parcha in year 1991 Patna High Court CWJC No.17499 of 2016(2) dt.04-08-2025 2/3 under Bihar Privilege person Homestead tenancy Act. (ii) Also for directing and commanding the respondents not to allow any person to convert the nature of the land in question in any manner? (iii) And also for any other relief/reliefs for which petitioner is found to be legally entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. It has been pointed out by the learned State counsel with the help of counter affidavit that though earlier, the petitioners got settlement order, pursuant to the orders of the court, the landholder got the land back and as such, the same land cannot be settled to them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in that case, he is ready to be settled anywhere else. 5. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the acknowledgment of the State that earlier the ‘parcha’ was granted in favour of the petitioner but since in the changed circumstance, the land went back to the landholder. 6. In that background, allowing the petitioner to Patna High Court CWJC No.17499 of 2016(2) dt.04-08-2025 3/3 approach the Collector, Muzaffarpur (respondent no.3) in next four weeks for the redressal of the grievance, who shall be taking up the matter by a reasoned order. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U