Md. Ekbal Ansari v. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Planniong and Development, Bihar
CR. WJC/2500/2024 · 2025-06-30
Sandeep Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 85593 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 85593 (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.2500 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Patna ======================================================
1. Md. Ekbal Ansari S/o- Ajmul Hak Resident of Bathani Tola, Kharagpur Kanchanpur PS-Bihta, Patna
2. Shamsuddin Miyan @ Samsuddin Miya S/o- Ramaman @ Samsuddin Miya Village- Kharagpur Kanchanpur Ps-Bihta Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Planniong and Development, Bihar Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Dept of Planning and Development Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar
3. The Principal Secretary, Dept. of Land and REvenue Reforms Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar
4. The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization Work Division-2 Danapur Dept. of Planning and Development Govt. of Bihar
5. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna Bihar
6. The Senior Superintendent of Police,Patna Bihar
7. The Sub Divisonal Officer, Danapur Patna Bihar
8. The Circle Officer, Bihta Patna Bihar
9. The Officer in Charge, IIT Amhara Bihta Bihar
10. Narmadeshwar Singh S/o- Ambika Singh Village Po-Kanchanpur Kharagpur Ps-Vikram Dist- Patna
11. Satyendra Sharma S/o- Suresh Chandra Singh Village Po-Kanchanpur Kharagpur Ps-Vikram Dist- Patna
12. Manoj Kumar S/o- Narmadeshwar Singh Village Po-Kanchanpur Kharagpur Ps-Vikram Dist- Patna
13. Sasta Singh Son of Bimla Singh Village Po-Kanchanpur Kharagpur Ps- Vikram Dist- Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abu Bakar For the Respondent/s :
Mr.G.P. 24 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 30-06-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2500 of 2024(2) dt.30-06-2025 2/5
learned counsel for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, has submitted that the issue in question has been raised earlier in this Court in CWJC No. 13998 of 2024 which has already been disposed of. 3. The following order has been passed in CWJC No. 13998 of 2024 on 29.10.2024:-
“The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-
“1.a) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ or order for quashing letter no. 2380 dated 8.10.2022, by which the circle officer has deliberately showed the entire land i.e. approx 112 decimal, appertaining to Khesra no.2017, as land earmarked for the graveyard, whereas, as per the khatiyan only 15 decimal of the land is earmarked as graveyard in Plot/Khesra No. 2017, Khata No. 83, situated at revenue village- Kharagpur, Kanchanpur Pargana, Thana-Vikram, Bihta, Bihar. b) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ or order for stay of the work undertaken as per tender dated 15.12.2023, issued by Respondent No.2 vide Letter/Memo No. 07/2023- 24/E-TENDER for fencing of graveyard. c) For issuance of a writ in nature of a
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2500 of 2024(2) dt.30-06-2025 3/5 declaration to the effect that the unilateral act of the respondents in utilizing the village community land is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice;”
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievances of the petitioners have stood redressed in view of the statement made in paragraph no.9 of the counter affidavit filed in the present case, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“9. That as per the aforesaid report, the land in question under Mauza- Kharagpur, Thana no.- 123, Khata no.- 83, Plot no.-2017, area-15 dismil is Gairmajarua Aam and its nature is Kabristan and 'Bans kothi Bakabje Malik' as per the Survey Khatiyan. There is no jamabandi created with regard to the said land or revenue receipt issued. As per the report and map, submitted by the Circle Amin, Bihta, the total area in Khatiyan under Khata no.-83, Plot no.- 2017 is 1.1723 acre out of which there is soling road on-6 dismil of land. Thus remaining area is 1.1123 acre. On spot inspection 5-6 mazar has been found in damaged condition.
It has been found that the local villagers are using the land as playground, charagah and as rasta for going to school and temple. There is one
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2500 of 2024(2) dt.30-06-2025 4/5 temple and trees found near the land in question. The muslim community has given their written consent to the S.D.O., Danapur and S.D.P.O.-2, Danapur with regard to fencing of the Kabristan after leaving 10 feet road in north, south and west direction for public movement apart from the soling road situated in the eastern direction. The first party has submitted for doing the fencing work on the 15 dismil of land only as local villagers are using the land as playground, charagah and as rasta for going to school and temple. It has been further observed that the muslim community used part portion of plot no.- 2017 as Kabristan but in course of time the entire vacant land is being used here and there for burial of dead bodies. As per the survey khatiyan, area in Plot no.- 2017 is 1.1123 acre but the land having area-15 dismil in Plot no.- 2017 is Gairmajarua Aam and its nature is kabristan. At present both the communities are using the land in question for daily activities and public use. It has been further submitted in the report that the work of fencing of Nali may be done in the western side of the packa Mazar on the said 15 dismil of land.”
3. In view of the aforesaid, the learned
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2500 of 2024(2) dt.30-06-2025 5/5 counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners seeks not to press the present writ petition at the moment, hence, the same be
disposed off.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off.”
4. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this application.
5. The petitioners are directed not to raise the same issue in different jurisdiction.
7. With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
Vikas/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U