Brahmdeo Prasad Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11993 of 2017 ====================================================== Brahmdeo Prasad Mahto Son of late Munshi Mahto Resident of VillageSamsa, P.S. Nowkothi, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Collector, Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 3.

The Additional Collector, Begusarai.

4.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 5.

The Anchal Adhikari Bakhri, Block- Bakhri, Sub- Division- Bakhri, DistrictBegusarai. 6.

Ram Nand Mahto Son of late Dwarka Mahto Resident of Village- Samsa, P.S. Nowkothi, District- Begusarai.

7.

Pradeep Mahto Son of late Dwarka Mahto Resident of Village- Samsa, P.S. Nowkothi, District- Begusarai.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar Ambastha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sajid Salim Khan -SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 28-04-2025 Heard the parties.

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

"for issuance of appropriate writ or writs, order and direction to the Respondent authorities to distribute the surplus land amongst the poor persons of ceiling Case no.18/1993-74 State Vrs. Mostt. Siya Devi which was finally disposed of on 12.11.1982 by the learned D.C.L.R. Begusarai, Respondent no.4 in which one unit 97 acres of land

Patna High Court CWJC No.11993 of 2017(2) dt.28-04-2025 2/2 allotted to Siya Devi wife of Lakhan Mahto land holder under the Ceiling proceeding and after holding proper enquiry mandatory provision of Bihar Land Reforms Act Gazette Notification dated 1.2.83 was issued some lands to be surplus and the said surplus land is in the possession of Respondent no.6 and 7 Rama Nand Mahto and Pradeep Mahto, both son of Late Dwarka Mahto who was adopted son and legal heir of Late Lakhan Mahto."

3. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the petition, Brahmdeo Prasad Mahto died. He being the sole petitioner and since no one has come forward to get him substituted, he may be permitted to withdraw the petition.

4. Permission accorded.

5. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U