IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9866 of 2025 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar S/o Late Antu Singh, R/o- Vill. - Burhi Jethwar, P.S- Tarari, District - Bhojpur At present - A 328 Budh Vuhar Phase 2, P.S. - Vijay Vihar, Dist.- North West, New Delhi. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Dept., Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur. 3. The SDO, Bhojpur. 4. The Circle Officer, Tarari, Bhojpur. 5. The SHO, Tarari, Bhojpur. 6. Jairam Singh, S/o Late Antu Singh, R/o- Vill. - Burhi Jethwar, P.S. - Tarari, District - Bhojpur. 7. Birendra Singh, S/o Late Antu Singh, R/o- Vill. - Burhi Jethwar, P.S. - Tarari, District- Bhojpur. 8. Rameshwar Singh, S/o Late Antu Singh, R/o- Vill. - Burhi Jethwar, P.S. - Tarari, District- Bhojpur. 9. Vikas Kumar, S/o Birendra Singh, R/o- Vill. - Burhi Jethwar, P.S. - Tarari, District- Bhojpur. 10. Shivmurti Singh, S/o Late Antu Singh, R/o- Vill. - Burhi Jethwar, P.S. - Tarari, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (10) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 01-07-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC-10 for the State. 2. From perusal of the office notes dated 25.06.2025, it would manifest that the same records, as per stamp report, the instant petition has been refiled after expiry of due date, as such, the same has been listed for condoning the delay, the delay is Patna High Court CWJC No.9866 of 2025(3) dt.01-07-2025 2/3 condoned. 3. The instant writ application has been filed for the instant relief:- “1. That the present writ petition is being filed for issuance of order / orders direction/ directions to the respondents no- 2 to 5 to take necessary action against the respondent no. 7 and 9 because they have deliberately harassed the petitioner because the petitioner is the owner of plot no. 92 which is a residential house of the petitioner and he is a coparcener in joint plot no. 108. The petitioner and the respondents no. 7 are of same family tree and in 2011-12 they have orally agreed for partition of their properties. The main dispute is for housing property of plot no. 92 where the petitioner and respondents no. 7 reside and the petitioner is the claimant of ½ of the said property. The petitioner lives in New Delhi for his livelihood and he had given his share of property to his brother (respondent no. 7) for maintaining the residential house of his share and in January 2025, when the petitioner returned to his village with his family, he found that 2 rooms of the share of petitioner has been locked by respondent no. 7 and not handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondents no. 7 and 9 to unlock the door and vacate the premises, but the respondent refused to vacate, and he has also requested/filed application before the authority concerned but no action has been taken to vacate his house by the respondent no. 7. In such circumstance, your lordship may give direction to the authority concerned to vacate the share of petitioner from Respondent no. 7 and pass appropriate order with direction to take necessary steps to vacate the share of Patna High Court CWJC No.9866 of 2025(3) dt.01-07-2025 3/3 petitioner according to law.” 4. From perusal of the prayer and pleadings made in the writ application, it manifests that the dispute is between private individuals, as such, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application, the writ application is dismissed. Rishabh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U