Patna High CourtCWJC/788/2008dismissed

Yogendra Mehta @ Yogendra Pd.M v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-03-23Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 788 of 2008 ====================================================== Yogendra Mehta @ Yogendra Pd. Mehta, son of Late Ram Charan Mehta, Resident of village Sauraha, P.S. K.Nagar District Purnia. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner, Purnia Division Purnia

3. The Addl. Collector, Land Ceiling Purnia.

4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Purnia

5. Rajendra Mehta son of Ganga Pd. Mehta

6. Bhola Pd. Mehta son of Lokhai Mehta, Both resident of village Sauraha P.S. K.Nagar Distt. Purnia.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar I For the Respondent/s : AC to GP-10 Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

10. 23-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader - 10 as well as Sri Parmeshwar Mehta, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 6/purchaser of the land in question.

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 01-08-2007 passed by the respondent no. 2/Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia in Ceiling Revision Case No. 8 of 2007-08 and for quashing of order dated 31-05-2007 passed by respondent no. 3/Addl. Collector, Land Ceiling Purnea in Ceiling Appeal No. 17 of 2005. The Addl.

Patna High Court CWJC No.788 of 2008 (10) dt.23-03-2015 2/2 Collector had allowed the appeal preferred by respondent no. 6 and set aside the order dated 25-02-2004 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Purnia in Pre-emption Case No. 13 of 2002-03 filed by the petitioner.

The present writ petition stood dismissed against respondent no. 5, however; the petitioner had not bothered to get the case restored in respect of respondent no. 5. The Court is of the opinion that in absence of vendor i.e. respondent no. 5, whole writ petition may not proceed. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay/- U