Md. Dargahi Mian v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13514 of 2017 ====================================================== Md. Dargahi Mian Son of Abdul Gafur deceased Resident of Village Uchala, P.O. Roshanganj, P.S. Roshanganj, District Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Joint Director, Consolidation, Gaya.

4.

The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Gaya.

5.

The Consolidation Officer, Amas, Gaya.

6.

Imaman Mian Son of Jagan Mian 7.

Zamiruddin Mian 8.

Md. Abbas Both sons of Late Wali Mohmmad Mian Resident of Village Uchala, P.S. Amas, District Gaya.

9.

Zaibual Nissa Wife of Abdul Gaffar Mian Resident of Village Ratanpur, P.S. Sherghati, District Gaya.

10.

Sajda Khatoon Wife of Salaluddin Mian Resident of Village Kunkarai, P.S. Imamganj, District Gaya.

11.

Jubaida Khatoon Wife of Abdul Jabbar Mian Resident of Mohalla Naraganj, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya.

12.

Fatima Khatoon Wife of Jamurddin Resident of Village Safi Bigha, P.S. Sherghati, District Gaya.

13.

Safarali Mian 14.

Anwar Mian 15.

Monawar Mian 16.

Nasroo Mian All Sons of Late Abdus Sakur Mian Resident of Village Uchala, P.S. Amas, District Gaya.

17.

Kolsum Bibi Wife of Abdul Rafique Mian Resident of Village Akauna, P.S. Amas, District Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Ray - Gp18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 29-04-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State is present.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13514 of 2017(2) dt.29-04-2025 2/2

2. The present application has been filed:

for issuance of writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the State of Bihar the Exercise its jurisdiction to cancel/denotify the consolidation operation in the area of the land of the petitioner as per provision contained in Section 4A of the Act.

3. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the respondent no. 2 where it has been stated that the petitioner should revive/pursue the Title suit no. 89 of 2002.

4. Be that as it may, since there is no appearance, the petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U