Sheo Kumar Singh And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20392 of 2014 ====================================================== 1.

Sheo Kumar Singh S/o- Late Jainandan Singh 2.

Amit Kumar, S/o- Sheo Kumar Singh, Both are permanent resident of village- Bakhorapur, P.S. Badhara, District- Rohtas at present resident of Mohalla- C/o Arbind Kumar Singh, Singhra Sthan Police Line, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 4.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya 5.

Smt. Nilam Sharma, wife of Uttam Kumar Sharma, resident of MohallaRamna, Near Teacher Training College, Sherghati, P.S.- Sherghati, DistrictGaya, at present resident of Kishori Mohan Complex, Road No. 3, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya 6.

Mithilesh Kumar Singh 7.

Ajay Kumar Singh Both sons of Jainandan Singh, Both resident of villageBakhorapur, P.S. Badhara, District- Rohtas at present resident of VillageKothara Do- Muhan, P.S. Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gaurav Govind, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. U. S. S.Singh, GP-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 31-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that upon getting information that during pendency of the writ petition, petitioner no. 1 died, intimation has been given to this Court vide order dated 03.07.2023 to file substitution petition

Patna High Court CWJC No.20392 of 2014(5) dt.31-08-2023 2/2 and permission was granted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that he has intimated in this regard to the petitioner no. 2 who is the son of petitioner no. 1 but no instruction was granted. Counsel submits that he is repeatedly intimating to petitioner no. 2 but he is not coming forward to file the substitution petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it transpires that petitioner no. 2 has lost interest to pursue this case. As such, this Court has no option but to dismiss this case with a liberty that as and when the petitioner no. 2 will come, he shall file substitution petition and also file the restoration, if required.

5. Accordingly, the present writ application is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/- U