Patna High CourtCWJC/16026/2005dfd for non appearance

Saligram Mishra @ Salik Ram Mi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-07-28Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16026 of 2005 ======================================================

1. Saligram Mishra @ Salik Ram Mishra, son of Late Ram Ayodhya Mishra,

2. Mostt. Rajkumari Kuwar, W/O Late Anil Kumar Mishra,

3. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, son of Late Anil Kumar Mishra

4. Pintu Kumari, daughter of late Anil Kumar Mishra, all resident of At + P.O. Sitalpur, P.S. Daudpur, District Saran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Lagani Devi W/O Chandrika Mahto.

3. Bharat Mishra son of Late Ambika Mishra (expunged vide order dated 12.05.2011 and substituted by his following heirs and legal representatives ) (a) Ashutosh Mishra son of late Bharat Mishra. (b) Smt. Siya Devi (c) Shiv Kumari (d) Shail Kumari, all daughters of late Bharat Mishra,

4. Ahilya Kumari D/O Chandrika Mahto, all residents of At + P.O. Shitalpur, P.S. Daudpur, District Saran

5. Sri Pancham Lal, Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None. For the Respondent No.1 & 5: Mr. Ajay, GA-V For the respondent 3(a) to 4 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Tiwary, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-07-2016 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioners in support of the present writ petition, though the names of the learned counsel appearing on their behalf are printed in the daily cause list.

The learned G.A. 5 appearing on behalf of the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, on the other hand, submit that by recording concurrent findings of facts the claims of pre-emption raised on behalf of the petitioners have been rejected by the appellate

Patna High Court CWJC No.16026 of 2005 (6) dt.28-07-2016 2/2 authority as also the revisional authority; therefore, according to them, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Be that as it may, since none is appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U