S. M. Zafar Imam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.464 of 2024 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1275 of 2023 ====================================================== S. M. Zafar Imam Son of Late S. M. Zareef, Resident of Mohalla- Quazina, Benipur, Basuham, Police Station- Bahera, District-Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Darbhanga at Darbhanga. 3.

The S.D.O. Benipur, District- Darbhanga.

4.

The Circle Officer, Benipur Anchal, Benipur, District Darbhanga. 5.

The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Darbhanga. 6.

The Senior Incharge Officer of District Record Room, Darbhanga. 7.

S. M. Naiyer Imam, Son of Late S. M. Zareef, Resident of village and P.O. and Police Station- Bahera, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY) 17-07-2026 The instant application has been filed praying for correcting a typographical error which has occurred in paragraph no.18 of L.P.A. no.1275 of 2023 (S.M. Zafar Imam vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.). Paragraph 18 of the order dated 9.11.2023 is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "18. Thus, we hold that if the appellant-petitioner chooses to challenge the order of the Circle Officer, Benipur in connection with

Patna High Court MJC No.464 of 2024(3) dt.17-07-2026 2/2 Case No. 13/2011-2012, the same shall be decided on its own merit and the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge shall not be taken into consideration."

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the correct Encroachment Case No. 23/2011-12 is correctly mentioned in paragraph no.16 of the said order as also in the petition filed in L.P.A. no.1275 of 2023, a typographical error has occurred in paragraph no.18 of the order. The same be corrected.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the petition, it is directed that in paragraph no.18 of the order dated 9.11.2023 passed in L.P.A. no.1275 of 2023, the case number mentioned therein be read as Case No. 23/2011-2012 in place of Case No. 13/2011-2012.

4. The remaining part of the order dated 9.11.2023 shall remained unchanged.

5. The application stands disposed off.

(Partha Sarthy, J) (Rajiv Roy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U