Yamuna Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4639 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18590 of 2016 ====================================================== Yamuna Kumar, Son of Late Ram Balak Yadav, Resident of VillageSahbajpur, P.O.- Fatehpur Nepa, Police Station- Tekari, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar.

2.

Mr. Brajesh Mehrotra, Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, District Magistrate, Gaya. 4.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Sub Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya. 5.

Mrs. Anita Bharti, Circle Officer, Tekari, Gaya. 6.

Shibu Mahto, Son of Late Deo Bhajan Gope, 7.

Mahadev Mahto, Son of Late Deo Bhajan Gope, 8.

Hari Mahto, Son of Late Deo Bhajan Gope, 9.

Nitish Kumar, Son of Late Jawahar Mahto, All opposite party no.6 to 9 are resident of Village- Sahbajpur, P.O.- Fatehpur, Nepa, Police Station- Tekari, District- Gaya.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam - AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 29-11-2023 The present M.J.C. is filed for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 26.04.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18590 of 2016. Show Cause has been filed along with certain documents.

2. According to the Respondents, there is no

Patna High Court MJC No.4639 of 2018(7) dt.29-11-2023 2/2 encroachment on the Government land on behalf of any private parties. However, the same is being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At the same time, he has not produced any revenue record to establish that private respondents have encroached the government land.

3. In the absence of material information, there is a compliance to the order, accordingly, MJC/Contempt Petition stands dropped reserving liberty to the petitioner to file Interlocutory Application to revive this order, in the event of any revenue records stand in the name of the State Government and it is being encroached by respondents No. 6 to 9, if such material is available, in that event, petitioner is permitted to file application for revival of this order.

4. Accordingly, the present MJC/Contempt Petition stands dropped.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) manish/- U