Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1006 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10351 of 2013 ====================================================== Lalita Devi wife of Late Ram Janam Kumar resident of Mohalla - Mathia Jirat, P.S. - Chhatauni, District- Wast Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari, East Champaran. 4.

Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Motihari, East Champaran. 5.

Anchaladhikari, Motihari, East Champaran.

6.

The Chairman, Motihari Municipality, Motihari, East Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ms. Kumari Anjali, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalit Kishore (Ag) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 14-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

2. The present modification application has been filed on behalf of Lalita Devi, wife of Late Ram Janma Kumar, who was the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 19662 of 2013. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 11.02.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No.19662 of 2013, the cause title shows the name of petitioner No.2, as Ram Janma Kumar, but Ram Janma Kumar died on 31.12.2020 and in his place, his wife, Lalita Devi, should have been substituted but

Patna High Court MJC No.1006 of 2021(4) dt.14-11-2025 2/3 unfortunately at the time when C.W.J.C. No.19662 of 2013 was disposed of, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court, as a result of which despite the fact that Ram Janma Kumar had died on 31.12.2020, his name continues to be shown in the cause title of C.W.J.C. No.19662 of 2013. He submits that this is creating hindrance. He further submits that in paragraph 7 of the judgment and order dated 11.02.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No.19662 of 2013, it has been stated that the respondent District Magistrate will explore the possibility of alternative arrangement so that the petitioner and their family members may not be rendered as jobless and suffer penury on account of decision to remove encroachment without providing alternative arrangement for their livelihood, but he would be satisfied, if this Court could clarify that the expression 'family members' used in paragraph 7 of the judgment and order dated 11.02.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19662 of 2013 includes wife of the petitioner.

3. It goes without saying that when this Court had used the expression 'petitioners and their family members' it automatically includes the wife of the petitioner, namely, Lalita Devi.

4. With the aforesaid clarification, the present

Patna High Court MJC No.1006 of 2021(4) dt.14-11-2025 3/3 application stands disposed of.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) sanjeev/- U