Patna High CourtCWJC/8946/2007dfd for non appearance

Musai Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-07-26Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8946 of 2007 ======================================================

1. Musai Yadav, son of late Mohan Yadav

2. Subidha Devi, wife of late Nakul Yadav

3. Chamaru Yadav, son of late Ghotai Yadav

4. Kaleshwar Yadav, son of late Ghotai Yadav All resident of village-Marangi, P.S.-Mansahi, District-Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Deputy Collector Land Reforms Katihar, P.S. & District-Katihar.

3. Bashishtha Narayan Yadav, son of late Yamuna Prasad Yadav.

4. Nitya Nand Yadav, son of Narayan Yadav Both are resident of village-Marangi, P.S.-Mansahi, District-Katihar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent nos.1&2 : Mr. P.K.Verma, AAG-3 Ms.Divya Verma, AC to AAG-3 For the Respondent nos.3&4 : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2016 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2006 passed in Batai Case No.336 of 2006-07 by the respondent D.C.L.R., Katihar, whereby the aforesaid Batai Case filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 48-E of the B.T. Act has been dismissed on account of non-prosecution. Even today, when the matter has been called out, none appears on behalf of the petitioners to press this application. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4, on the other hand, submit that the petitioners are in habit of filing frivolous case and thereafter they

Patna High Court CWJC No.8946 of 2007 (3) dt.26-07-2016 do not prosecute that litigation; therefore, it was rightly rejected by the D.C.L.R., Katihar.

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) Arvind/- U