IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1738 of 2025 ====================================================== Upendra Singh, Son of Hari Nandan Ray, Resident of Village - Bela, P.S. Bihita, Post Office, Neora, District - Patna - 80113, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector General of Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector-cum-District Registrar, Patna. 7. The District Sub-Registrar, Patna. 8. The Circle Officer, Bihita, District - Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta- GP-10 Mr. Virendra Kuar- AC to GP-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 14-07-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP-10 for the State. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he had purchased a piece of land pertaining to Khata No.355, Survey Plot No.1033, Area 04 decimals, Tauzi No.3646, Village- Bela, Bihta, Thana No.83 from Lakhmania Devi. Patna High Court CWJC No.1738 of 2025(6) dt.14-07-2025 2/4 3. It is next submitted that the instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the District Magistrate-cum- Collector-Registrar, Patna in Raiyatikarnan Case No.17 of 2023- 24, whereby the application filed by the vendor of the petitioner seeking raiyatikaran of the land has been rejected. Further, for a direction upon the Respondent No.6, the District Magistrate- cum-Collector-cum-District Registrar, Patna and Respondent No.7, the District Sub-Registrar, Patna to register the sale deed dated 17.04.2023, which has been executed in favour of the petitioner by his vendor Lakhmania Devi wife of Late Ramji Rai. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State had raised issue of locus of the petitioner to maintain the writ application in the nature of relief sought. The learned State counsel submitted that raiyatikaran of the land of Lakhmania Devi was rejected by the District Magistrate, as such, it was Lakhmania Devi, who was aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate. It is next submitted that if the order passed by the District Magistrate is set aside, in that event, raiyatikaran in favour of Lakhmania Devi will revive, but then, she has not assailed the order of the Collector. It is also submitted that Patna High Court CWJC No.1738 of 2025(6) dt.14-07-2025 3/4 petitioner is purchaser of the land raiyatikaran of which was rejected by the District Magistrate, as such, petitioner cannot seek a direction upon the authorities for registering the land until and unless, the order by which the raiyatikaran of the land has been rejected is set aside, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as far as second relief is concerned, if the document is otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, in that event, the Registrar cannot refuse registration based on title as Registrar is not entitled to look into the title of the land at the time of registration. It is also submitted that a purchaser either purchases land/property or bag of winds/ litigation with which the Registrar has no concern, but then, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that since petitioner is purchaser of the land in dispute from Lakhmania Devi, whose raiyatikaran has been rejected, as such, even if the land is registered in the name of the petitioner, no benefit will accrue to him until and unless the order refusing raiyatikaran is set aside. 5. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner thus submits that Lakhmania Devi has filed a writ application before this Court with the same prayer as made in Patna High Court CWJC No.1738 of 2025(6) dt.14-07-2025 4/4 the instant writ application bearing Token No. CWJC No.16122 of 2025. It is submitted that one defect still remains to be removed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that since Lakhmania Devi has filed the aforesaid writ application, as such, the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant writ application. 7. Permission is accorded. 8. Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. vikash/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U