Mohan Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16581 of 2011 ====================================================== MOHAN MANDAL Son of late Yugal Mandal, Resident of VillageRahatouli Tole- Dhabiyahi, P.S. Hathouri, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

The Commissioner , Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 3.

The A.D.M., Samastipur.

4.

The D.C.L.R., Samastipur.

5.

Sri Shankar Mandal, Son of late Dukha Mandal, Resident of VillageRahtouli Tole- Dhobiyahi, P.S. Hathouri, District- Samastipur. 6.

Sri Bindeshwar Singh, Son of late Jai Narain Singh, Resident of VillageKharari, P.S. Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. 7.

Most. Surya Mukhi Devi, W/o late Debendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Kharari, P.S. Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Anand, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar Gp3 For resp. no. 5 :

Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Adv.

Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 03-02-2026 Heard Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s):

(a) Order dated 14.12.2004 passed by Learned L.R.D.C. Samastipur in Land Ceiling Case No. 32/2003.

(b) Order dated 29.06.2007 passed by Learned Additional Collector, Samastipur in Ceiling Appeal No. 123/05-06 whereby

Patna High Court CWJC No.16581 of 2011(7) dt.03-02-2026 2/2 and where under the order passed by L.R.D.C. Samastipur was affirmed and appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed.

(c) Order dated 05.01.2010 passed by the Learned Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga in Land Ceiling Revision No. 21/07-08 whereby and where under its hold that authority did not find any infirmity in the order dated 29.06.2007 and upheld it and rejected the revision application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that with the change of law relating to pre-emption matter, the case has become infructuous.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous.

5. The amount, if deposited, has to be returned. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U