Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38218 (PAT)

Buchi Dai Devi and Ors v. The State Of Bihar and Ors

CWJC/22295/2014 · 2026-01-20

Rajiv Roy

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22295 of 2014 ====================================================== 1. Buchi Dai Devi Wife of Shri Indrakant Jha 2. Sushmita Devi W/o Herakant Jha 3. Indrakant Jha S/o Late Tripti Narayan Jhan All Resident of VillageP.O.- Hirani, ViaP.S.-Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Collector, Darbhanga. 3. Superintendent of Police Darbhanga. 4. S.D.O. Biroul, District-Darbhanga. 5. Anchal Adhikari, Kusheshwar Asthan Satigha District-Darbhanga. 6. Officer-in-Charge, Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga. 7. Ram Sudhari Yadav S/o Late Kujai Yadav 8. Binodanand Yadav S/o Late Kujai Yadav 9. Binay Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Sudhari Yadav 10. Akhilesh Yadav S/o Binodanand Yadav 11. Lalan Yadav S/o Binodanand Yadav 12. Raj Kishore Yadav S/o Binodanand Yadav 13. Sanjay Yadav S/o Binodanand yadav ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr.GP-19- Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 20-01-2026 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners though the State is present. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s): “for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official Patna High Court CWJC No.22295 of 2014(3) dt.20-01-2026 2/2 respondents to protect the land of petitioners of Khata No. 22 Old Khesra No. 41 New Khesra No.57 Area 15 Katha (orchard) of Mauza Atraha P.S. Rosera Now Kusheshwer Asthan Thana no.215 Distt- Darbhanga from Respondent no.7 to 13 who threaten to all petitioners with fire consequences if they do not leave all right title and possession over the aforesaid land.” 3. Learned State counsel submits that a perusal of the prayer would show that he should have moved before an appropriate authority instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. 4. Be that as it may, since there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Adnan/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U