Patna High CourtCWJC/7473/2015disposed

Rani Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-09Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7473 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Rani Gupta. Wife of Ram Nandan Prasad. Resident of Mohalla - Rikabganj, Post Office and Police Station - Tekari, District - Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary of Urban Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Collector, Gaya.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya.

5. The Circle Officer, Tekari, Gaya.

6. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Tekari, Gaya.

7. Ramashish Sharma.

8. Arbind Kumar. Both sons of Laxmikant Sharma.

9. Santosh Kumar. Son of Ramashish Sharma.

10. Ram Bharosh Singh. Son of Late Jagat Narayan Singh. All Resident of Mohalla - Rikabganj, Police Station - Tekari, District - Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Thakur For the Respondent/s 1 to 5 : Smt. Namrata Mishra, GA-13 Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to GA-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ) 09-03-2016 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Smt. Namrata Mishra, learned Government Advocate No.13, appearing on behalf of the State respondents, is present. We have already recorded in the order, dated 23.02.2016, that according to the affidavit, which has been filed by Shri Amrit Lal Meena, Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7473 of 2015 (4) dt.09-03-2016 2/2 encroachment, in question, has been removed. As the averments so made on affidavit have been disputed on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner was given time to file affidavit in reply. Neither the petitioner is present nor any affidavit in reply on his behalf has been filed.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, this writ proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hereby closed.

(I.A. Ansari, ACJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) K.C.jha/- U