Munilal Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20241 of 2016 ====================================================== Munilal Singh S/o Late Ramanand Singh, Resident of Village- Balidad, P.S.- Mehandia, District- Arwal.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

3.

The Collector, Arwal.

4.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Arwal.

5.

Smt. Ram Kuer Devi W/o Sri Bhagwan Das, Resident of Village- Sakari Tola Narain Bigha, P.S.- Parasi, District- Arwal. 6.

Kameshwar Singh 7.

Ram Pravesh Singh Both 6 & 7 sons of Late Ramanand Singh 8.

Most. Sita Sundar Devi W/o Late Suresh Chandra @ Kumbh Singh 9.

Sri Raj Kumar minor son of Late Suresh Chandra @ Kumbh Singh under guardianship of his mother Most. Sunder Devi, m Resident of VillageBalidad, P.S.- Mehandia, District- Arwal. ... ... 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 13-10-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State is present.

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

"for issuance of writ/order for quashing the order dated 10-08-2016 (Annexure-14) passed by the Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No. 1354/2015 by which she has set-

Patna High Court CWJC No.20241 of 2016(3) dt.13-10-2025 2/2 aside the order dated 03-05-2012 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Ceiling Revision No. 26/2009 and order dated 04-06-2009 passed by Collector, Arwal in Ceiling Appeal No. 4/D/M/2006-07 and given liberty to the respondent 2nd set to prefer appeal again against the order dated 07-09-2006/5-102006 passed by D.C.L.R. Arwal, in Ceiling Case No. 2/2006 taking the points which have not been taken before the D.C.L.R. in her show cause."

3. It has been informed by Mr. Madhukar Pandey that the petitioner took no objection in the matter and as such, it is not possible to appear in the case.

4. No further Vakalatnama has been filed. It seems that the petitioner has lost interest in the case.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U