Anil Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
CR. WJC/798/2025 · 2025-07-24
Sandeep Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31707 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31707 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.798 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Rohtas ====================================================== Anil Kumar Gupta S/O Sri Kishun Sah R/O Village- Sigwa Dharampura, P.S- Nokha, Distt.- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The State of Bihar the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. Bihar
2. The District Magistrate Rohtas at Sasarm Bihar
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sasaram. Bihar
4. The District Collector Land Reform, Sasaram. Bihar
5. The SHO of Sasarm at Rohtas. Bihar
6. The District Superintendent of Police, Sasaram. Bihar
7. The Superintendent of Police Rohtas. Bihar
8. The Director General of Police Rohtas at Sasaram. Bihar
9. The Baleshwar Singh S/O Jai Nath Choudhary R/O Village- Ratiya, P.S- Badahari, Distt.- Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikalp For the Respondent/s :
Mr. S.C.10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 24-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. This application has been filed for seeking following reliefs: I. For direction to this concerned authority to get possession upon the land bearing Mauza Takiya at PLOT No. 23 under Khata nol.50. according M/S Plot no. 62/under MS. Khata No. 142 Meaning area of 3 desmil.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.798 of 2025(2) dt.24-07-2025 2/2 II. For direction to the concerned authority to disposed of the representation filed by the petitioner. III. For direction to the concerned authority to take appropriate action upon the Private Respondents against the law. IV. For a direction to the concerned authority to lodged FIR against Private Respondents against the accordance with law.
3. In the facts of the case, this application seems to be not maintainable before this Court.
4. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Court below/appropriate Authority for redressal of his grievance.
anand/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U t