Ranjna Devi @ Ranjna Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18878 of 2017 ====================================================== Ranjna Devi @ Ranjna Kumari Wife of Pramod Paswan, Resident of VillageGhuski, P.S.-Barari, District-Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Collector Katihar.

3.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Katihar.

4.

The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Katihar. 5.

The Circle Officer, Barari District-Katihar.

6.

The Superintendent of Police, Katihar.

7.

The Officer in-Charge of Barari Police Station District-Katihar. 8.

Raj Kishor Yadav.

9.

Kailash Yadav, 10.

Jai Prakash Yadav All Son of Late Ghari Lal Yadav, Resident of VillageGhuski, P.S.-Barari, District-Katihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shivendra Prasad, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ebadur Rahman Shakeb, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 25-04-2023 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities directing them to remove encroachment from Khata No 1068 Plot No.

3199 Area 12 decimal which belongs to the petitioner but the respondent No. 8 to 10 have encroached the same by putting nad and

Patna High Court CWJC No.18878 of 2017(2) dt.25-04-2023 2/2 erecting khuta there on to keep the cattles and also to ensure peaceful possession of the petitioner there on the abovesaid land as the encroachment is not being removed by the respondent No. 8 to 10 even though the order has been passed by the revenue authority to remove the encroachment and direction has also been given to the circle officer to ensure the possession of the petitioner but the respondent authorities are taking no action to ensure removal of encroachment and possession of the petitioner. The further prayer for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

At the outset, the learned counsel for the RespondentState has referred to the counter affidavit, filed in the present case, to submit that the encroachment in question has already stood removed.

If that be the matter, nothing survives for consideration in the present writ petition, hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U