Parth Sarath Das Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7842 of 2017 ====================================================== Parth Sarath Das Gupta son of Late Niranjan Das Gupta, resident of VillageAraria, Ward No.25, Bazar Basantpur Candni Chowk, P.S.- Araria, DistrictAraria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Bihar Land Tribunal through the Chairman, Patna. 3.

The Hon'ble Additional Member, Administrative, B.L.T., Patna. 4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria.

5.

The Anchal Adhikari, Araria.

6.

Ramanand Yadav, S/o Late Sukal Yadav, resident of village- Gaiyari, P.S.- Araria, District- Araria.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Roy-GP-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 16-04-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though the State is present.

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

"for setting aside the order dated 28.10.2016 of the Hon'ble Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna whereby the Hon'ble Tribunal in B.L.T. Case No. 1178 of 2015 set aside the order dated 09.06.2015 in Appeal Case No. 28/2014-15 passed by the learned SDO, Araria and the Hon'ble

Patna High Court CWJC No.7842 of 2017(4) dt.16-04-2025 2/2 Tribunal remanded the matter to the Circle Officer, Araria."

3. Learned State counsel has taken this Court to the order passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna (henceforth for short 'the Tribunal') dated 28.10.2016 in BLT Case No. 1178 of 2015 (Ramanand Yadav Vs The State of Bihar & Ors.) to show that 'the Tribunal' has simply remanded the matter back to the Circle Officer, Araria to hear a fresh and pass an appropriate order without being prejudiced by the order passed by it.

4. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned State counsel that simple remand of the matter has been challenged in the writ petition.

5. However, since no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the same is dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U