Rajendra Tanti And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25640 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Rajendra Tanti.

2. Ashok Tanti @ Asho Tanti.

3. Mahesh Tanti All are sons of Late Prabhu Tanti, Resident Of Village- Harni, P.S- Khaira, District- Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar, through Collector, Jamui,.

2. Collector, Jamui.

3. Addl. Collector, Land Reforms, Jamui.

4. Circle Officer, Khaira Block, Jamui.

5. Circle Inspector, Khaira Circle District Jamui

6. Halka Karamchari, Village Harni, Khaira Block District- Jamui.

7. Subodh Tanti, S/O Late Masudan Tanti, Resident Of Village, Harni, P.SKhaira, District- Jamui. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ratan Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Kartik Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Respondent nos.1to6 : Mr. Anil Kr. Uapdhyay, SC-20 For the Respondent no.7 : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2016 After some argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in presence of the learned SC-20 appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 6 as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.7, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to approach the revisional authority as provided under Section 9 (7)(a) of The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 for grant of appropriate relief with respect to the lands in question as also with respect to the order(s) impugned in the present proceeding. Permission is accorded.

The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

Patna High Court CWJC No.25640 of 2013 (2) dt.18-04-2016 It goes without saying that, if an appropriate revision application is filed on behalf of the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today with a certified copy of the present order, then the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits without being prejudiced by the fact that the present writ petition has not been entertained by this Court.

It is also clarified that, if such a revision application is filed within the aforesaid period of three weeks and, if it is found to have become barred by limitation and, if an appropriate petition is filed for condonation of such delay, then the revisional authority shall take into consideration that on a bonafide legal advice the present writ petition was filed before this Court on 23.12.2013 and that remained pending till date. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of facts and law with respect to the lands in question, which may be available to them before the prescribed revisional authority. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U