← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/11533/2017withdrawn

Sureman Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2025-04-22Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11533 of 2017 ====================================================== Sureman Ram S/o Late Fatigan Ram, resident of Village- Dumaria, P.S.- Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

That Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna.

3.

The Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra.

5.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Saran at Sadar, Chapra. 6.

Rajeshwar Ram, S/o Late Nagina Ram, resident of Village- Dumaria, P.S.- Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

7.

Ram Balak Ram, S/o Late Nagina Ram, resident of Village- Dumaria, P.S.- Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

8.

Chandeshwar Ram, S/o Late Sagar Ram, resident of Village- Dumaria, P.S.- Chapra Mufassil, District- Saran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam- Aag12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-04-2025 Heard the parties.

The writ petition has been filed for:- "(a) For quashing of the order dated 26.5.2017 passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal in BLT Case No.156/2016; order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar of Revenue, Bihar, Patna Land Ceiling Revision Case No.56/1999 and also the order dated 29.1.1999 passed by

Patna High Court CWJC No.11533 of 2017(2) dt.22-04-2025 2/2 the Additional Collector, Saran in Land Ceiling Appeal No.31/97 by which pre-emption application has been allowed.

(b) For upholding the order dated 9.9.1997 passed in land Ceiling Case No.16/9596 by the DCLR, Sadar Chapra who dismissed the pre-emption application.

(c) For grant of stay of the operation of the impugned orders dated 26.5.2017.

(d) For any other relief."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the passage of time, the writ petition has become infructuous. As such, he may be permitted to withdraw the same.

4. The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn being infructuous.

(Rajiv Roy, J) perwez/- U