Parmeshwar Prasad Gupta And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11595 of 1997 ====================================================== Manjhi Sah son of Late Baldeo Sah (expunged vide order dated 31.08.1999 and substituted by his following heirs and legal representatives) (i) Parmeshwar Prasad Gupta (ii) Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta Both resident of village Bishunpur, Bhalud, Post Bishunpur Bhalud, P.S.Bela, District Sitamari .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur

3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation

4. The Consolidation Officer, Parihar, District Sitamarhi

5. Lall Kishore Singh son of Ramjatan Singh

6. Saroj Kumar Singh son of Lall Kishore Singh

7. Manoj Kumar Singh son of Lall Kishore Singh

8. Ram Chander Mandal son of Late Pragas Mandal

9. Bhola Mandal son of Late Ram Pragas Mandal

10. Lall Kishore Mandal son of Late Ram Pragass Mandal

11. Ram Narain Mandal son of Late Bilal Mandal Respondent nos. 5 to 11 are residents of village Bishunpur, Khairwan Bhalud, Post Bishunpur, Khairwan, P.S. Bela Bhalud, District Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Harun Quarashi, AC to SC 18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER ----------------- 09-09-2015 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioners.

From the office note dated 08.09.2015 it appears that the original sole petitioner Manjhi Sah died during pendency of the writ petition and he was substituted by his two sons by order dated 31.08.1999. It further appears that both the substituted petitioners have also passed away during the pendency of the present writ petition. I.A. No. 9390 of 2014 was filed for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of aforesaid two

Patna High Court CWJC No.11595 of 1997 (14) dt.09-09-2015 2/2 substituted writ petitioners, which has been dismissed by a Bench of this Court (Coram: Rakesh Kumar,J.) by order dated 26.06.2015. In that view of the matter, the writ petition cannot proceed as none of the petitioners are surviving. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents does not dispute the aforesaid factual position, rather he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in the facts of the case.

In above view of the matter, the writ petition as a whole has abated and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/- U