← Library
Patna High CourtC. REV./501/2016dismissed

Md. Zeyauddin v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2023-12-14Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.501 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17652 of 2014 ====================================================== Md. Zeyauddin son of Late Md. Halimuddin resident of village - Hamzapur, P.S.- Amas, Distt. - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Collector, Gaya.

3.

The Additional Collector, Gaya.

4.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sherghati, Gaya. 5.

The Anchal Adhikari, Amas Anchal, District - Gaya. 6.

Karamchari, Mahnawa Panchayat, Amas Anchal, Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mohammed Abu Haidar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Asif Kalim, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 14-12-2023 Though the present petition has been filed for review of the order dated 03.10.2016 passed in CWJC No. 17652 of 2014, but it has not been denied by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner that the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 9(6)(a) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, against the order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Gaya in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 33 of 2013-14 is available, hence it submitted that the

Patna High Court C. REV. No.501 of 2016(5) dt.14-12-2023 2/2 petitioner be granted liberty to act in terms of the aforesaid order dated 03.10.2016. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

2.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that since review petition was pending before this Court since several years, the said period be directed to be condoned in case the petitioner files appropriate appeal.

3.

It is needless to state that in case the review petitioner files appropriate appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay, the same shall be considered sympathetically by the appellate authority taking into account the pendency of the review petition before this Court since the year 2016.

4.

The review petition stands dismissed as not pressed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U