Kashi Nath Prasad And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7427 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Kashi Nath Prasad Son of Late Dowarika Prasad. 2.

Laxman Prasad 3.

Bhagwan Prasad. 2 to 3 are Sons of Late Badari Prasad. 4.

Birendra Prasad, Son of Late Sant Lal Prasad. All Resident of VillageSahlaur, P.S.- Pachrukhi, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Director Fishry Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Deputy Director, Fishry Department, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Collector, Siwan.

5.

The District Fishry Officer, Siwan.

6.

The Circle Officer, Pachrukhi Block, Siwan.

7.

Kashi Nath Prasad, Son of Late Bhangi Prasad, Pachrukhi Block Fishry Jivi Co-operative Society Ltd., District- Siwan.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 15-04-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State is represented through Mrs. Nutan Sahay AC to AAG-12.

2. The present petition has been preferred for following relief:

i) for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the notification notified by Memo no 378/Fishry/ Siwan dated 02.06.2016 by which the private Tank of the petitioners and others tank have been settled

Patna High Court CWJC No.7427 of 2017(4) dt.15-04-2025 2/2 with the respondent no.7 for the year, 2012-13 to 2016-017 as contained in Annexure-6 to this application.

ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for declare that the private tank of the petitioners have been acquired by the Respondents in Back of the petitioners arbitrary without giving any opportunity to the petitioners avoiding away right/title and possession of the petitioners.

iii) for issuance of any other a appropriate writ/order/direction for which the petitioners are entitled.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the matter relates to the settlement of the tank for the year 2012-13 to 2016-17 and has become infructuous and as such, the petitioner is not appearing.

4. Since no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, the petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U