Patna High CourtCWJC/7691/1995dismissed

Seikh Md.Gule Abbas v. State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-06-25Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7691 of 1995 =========================================================== Seikh Md.Gule Abbas, son of Late Seikh Welayat Hussain, resident of village - Sandaur, P.S. - Sandaur, P.S. - Bihiya, District - Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur, Arrah.

4. The Consolidation Officer, Bihiya, Bhojpur 5(a) Hirday Narayan Singh 5(b) Sudama Singh

6. Chandrama Rai, son of Bhola Rai 7(a) Styadeo Singh 7(b) Sukhdeo Singh

8. Ramdeo Rai, son of Lilla Rai

9. Jana Rai @ Janardhan Rai, son of Lilla Rai

10. Ram Pujan Singh, son of Hawaldar Singh

11. Ram kumar Singh, son of Hawaldar Singh

12. Manapati Devi, daughter of Hawaldar Singh

13. Raja Devi, daughter of Hawaldar Singh

14. Ram Ratan Singh, son of Ramgnath Rai

15. Ayodhya Singh, son of Ramgnath Rai

16. Krishna Singh, son of Ramgnath Rai All residents of Village Ram Ratanpur, Bhasaula, P.S. - Barahara, District - Bhojpur

17. Kedarnath Ojha, son of Late Jay Bahadur Ojha

18. Sudama Ojha, son of Late Jay Bahadur Ojha Both residents of village Sandaur, P.S. - Bihiya, District - Bhojpur. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-06-2015 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this application.

From the order-sheet, it appears that this writ petition stood dismissed as against respondent nos. 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14

Patna High Court CWJC No.7691 of 1995 dt.25-06-2015 who are contesting respondents.

In my view, the entire writ petition becomes not maintainable inasmuch as application in respect of some of the contesting respondents have already been dismissed. There would be chance of conflicting orders if the writ petition was to be allowed they were beneficiary of the order of the Revisional Authority. This writ application, accordingly, dismissed. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) Rajeev/N.A.F.R.