Sukalu Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20370 of 2018 ====================================================== Sukalu Ram Son of Ghurfekan Ram, resident of Village- Gangwaliya, P.O.- Besahee, P.S. Anchal- Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. 3.

The Additional Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua.

4.

The Deputy Collector Land Reform, Mohania, Kaimur. 5.

The Anchal Adhikari, Kudra, District- Kaimur. 6.

Bechan Ram, Son of Late Gharbharan Ram, Village- Gangwaliya, P.O.- Basahee, Anchal- Kudra, District- Kaimur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 06-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amrendra Narayan Rai, learned counsel representing the respondent no.6 as also Mr. Nutan Sahay, learned AC to AAG-12 representing the State.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

"(i) for issuance of the appropriate writ/writs for quashing the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the B.L.T. Court in short called as "Tribunal" in B.L.T. Case No. 829/17 whereby and where under the court has rejected the case of the petitioner committing the same mistake as was committed the court of Additional Collector vide its order dated 03.11.2017 in

Patna High Court CWJC No.20370 of 2018(3) dt.06-01-2026 2/2 Mutation Rev. No. 34/2014-15 who had set-aside the orders passed commonly on 16.06.2014 in Mutation Case No. 36/2013-14 and 37/2013-14 and affirm of the order of the Circle Officer dated 16.02.2013 in Mutation Case No. 2113/2012-13 and order dated 28.06.2013 in Mutation Case No. 869/2013-14.

(ii) for issuance of relief/reliefs which may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of case."

3. At the outset, it has been accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Title Suit No. 140 of 2014 which was preferred by the petitioner himself now stand disposed of. He submits that in that background, the writ petition has become infructuous.

4. Considering the aforesaid development, that has been brought to the knowledge of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, appreciating the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of as become infructuous. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U