Most. Lakho Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3571 of 2003 ====================================================== 1(i) Most. Lakho Devi, wife of Late Sudhir Mahto 1(ii) Samjit Kumar Mahto 1(iii) Ranjeet Kumar Mahto 1(iv) Amarjeet Kumar Mahto, 1(ii) to 1(iv) are sons of Late Sudhir Mahto, resident of village- Dumariya, Tola- Tirasi, P.S.- Mansahi, District- Katihar.

2. Gopal Mahto, son of Late Mishri Mahto, resident of village- Dumariya, Tola- Tirasi, P.S.- Mansahi, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Collector, Katihar.

3. The Addl. Collector, Land Reforms, Katihar.

4. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, son of Late Banarsi Lal Agrawal, resident of Mohulla- Bara Bazar, P.S.- & District- Katihar. 5(i) Santolo Devi, wifeof Late Basudeo Choudhary 5(ii) Bhola Choudhary 5(iii) Rajiv Choudhary 5(iv) Sanjiv Choudhary, 5(ii) to 5(iv) are sons of Basudeo Choudhary 5(v) Rajiya Devi 5(vi) Gitu Devi 5(vii)Sito Devi 5(viii) Punam Kumari, 5(v) to 5(viii) are daughters of Late Basudeo Choudhary, resident of village- Kosholpur, P.S. Barari, District- Katihar. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 19-01-2015 In C.W.J.C. No.3571 of 2003 as well as C.W.J.C. No.892 of 2004 both have been listed together in view of the order dated 25.8.2009.

In C.W.J.C. No.3571 of 2003, the petitioners have challenged the appellate order dated 2.1.2003 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No.800 of 2000 by which the order passed by the D.C.L.R. under Section 48E of the Act in favour of the petitioners had been set aside.

As per claim of the petitioner in C.W.J.C.892 of

Patna High Court CWJC No.3571 of 2003 (16) dt.19-01-2015 2004, homestead purcha has been issued in favour of the respondent nos.4 and 5, who are the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.3571 of 2003 for the same set of land.

None appears on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.3571 of 2003. It appears from the order sheet that on the last occasion also, none had appeared to press this application when the matter was called out.

As a result, due to repeated absence of the counsel for the petitioners, this writ application is dismissed for want of prosecution. So far the show cause notice issued vide order dated 27.8.2009 is concerned, the respondents have filed affidavit submitting that the petitioners are un-necessary harassing them by filing several cases including the complaint cases. Only due to the fact that cognizance has been taken in a complaint case, one should not be held guilty of contempt of this Court. In fact it has been stated that the respondent no.5 has purchased 31 decimals of the land in question from respondent no.4 in 1999 and rest of the land was purchased in the name of wife of respondent no.5. After purchase, possession was delivered to them and since then respondent no.5 is in cultivating possession of the land in question. Jamabandi was also created in the name of purchaser and they are paying rent to the State of Bihar so the respondent no.5

Patna High Court CWJC No.3571 of 2003 (16) dt.19-01-2015 has not violated the order of maintaining status quo. The respondent no.5 has not cut away or severed any tree after the order dated 2.7.2004 passed by this Court.

Since the case itself has been dismissed as the petitioners are not being represented, this issue is not required to be decided.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, C.W.J.C. No.892 of 2004 would be considered separately. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) N.H./- U