Ajay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16175 of 2018 ====================================================== Ajay Kumar Singh Son of Late Braj Bhusan Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Chapar Jorawar, Post Office-Chapar, Police Station-Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Animal and Fisheries Resources Department, State of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Director, Land record and Measurement, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Director, Animal and Fisheries Resources Department, State of Bihar, Patna.

6.

The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 7.

The Collector, Samastipur.

8.

The District Fishery Officer-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Samastipur. 9.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Patory Samastipur. 10.

The Circle Officer, Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-State.

2. The petitioner through this writ application has prayed for quashing of the memo no.1134/Fishery, Samastipur dated 08.11.2012 (Annexure-1) by which the respondent no.8 had issued Limited Dak Notice for settlement of Fishery Jalkar for the period 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2019.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16175 of 2018(2) dt.22-08-2025 2/2

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents-State submits that since the Limited Dak Notice under challenge in this writ application relates to the period 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2019, therefore, as on today the present writ application has become infructuous with the lapse of the said period of settlement.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner agrees to the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State.

5. In view of the above, the present writ application is dismissed on account of having become infructuous. All pending I.As, if any will be deemed to have been disposed of. (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) Prakash Narayan U