Bibi Rashdah Khatoon And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12626 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.

Bibi Rashdah Khatoon Wife of Md. Shaukat 2.

Md. Shaukat Son of Late Md. Salim Both 1 and 2 R/o Mohalla - Karimganj, P.S. Civil Lines, Gaya, District Gaya 3.

Shazi Tabassum D/o Md. Shaukat R/o Mohalla and P.S. Patliputra Colony Mohalla Aliganj Road No. 1/B P.S. Chandauti District Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Collector, Gaya 3.

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector Sadar, Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Tetara Kumari, Advocate Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Prabhakar Thakur, AC to Ex-GA-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-07-2025 Heard the parties.

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

(i) for setting aside the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by Respondent no. 3 whereby and where under learned DCLR Sadar Gaya has illegally rejected the application for intervention filed by the petitioners in the light of observation made by this Hon'ble Court dated 14.10.2015 in CWJC No. 18336/12 and also learned DCLR has proponed the date of order, illegally and for any other order/orders may be passed in

Patna High Court CWJC No.12626 of 2016(2) dt.22-07-2025 2/2 the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. At the outset, learned State counsel submitted that against the interim order, the petitioners moved before this Court and with the help of Annexure-B that the final order has been passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, (Gaya) in Rent Fixation Case No. 01 of 2011-12 (Balram Singh vs. Umeshwari Kuwar Singh & Ors) and as such the matter has become infructuous.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that liberty be granted to agitate the matter before appropriate authority.

5. Granting said liberty and without commenting on the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of.

6. If the petitioners prefer any application before appropriate authority, the authority should take into account that the matter was pending before this Court for almost nine years while dealing with the limitation petition.

7. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U