Sudama Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6415 of 2014 ===========================================================
1. Sudama Kumar Son Of Mangal Chand Prasad Resident Of Mohalla- Pach- Hatti, Police Station- Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The Deputy Collector, Gaya.
4. The Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, Jaisaler House, 26 Mansingh Road, New Delhi. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amar Nath Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha For the Union of India: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-09-2015 Heard Mr. Amar Nath Singh for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, S.C. 19 for the State.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed after service which is taken on record.
The writ application was preferred to question the legality of order dated 16.5.2010 (Annexure-2) issued by the respondent District Collector, Gaya whereby the restriction was imposed on transfer of land falling within the Mauza Bakrour in the district of Gaya. The petitioner wanted his land to gift and for which he applied for no objection certificate. It has been submitted that in the meanwhile, veracity/legality of the order dated 16.5.2010 passed by the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.6415 of 2014 dt.04-09-2015 2/2 Collector was challenged in another writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 13007 of 2012 and this Court quashed the said order. In view of the aforesaid, it has been rightly submitted by Mr. Singh that no objection certificate for the gift of land falling in the said Mauza is now no longer required and the writ application has lost its efficacy.
Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, appreciating the facts stated in the writ application as well as in the supplementary affidavit, is not disputing the aforesaid contention.
The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U T