Purushottam Prasad Rakesh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1325 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15599 of 2019 ====================================================== Purushottam Prasad Rakesh son of Late Yudhisthir Singh resident of VillageGalimapur, P.O. Sikandarpur, Police Station- Shakurabad, DistrictJehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Sri Chandragupt Ashok Vardhan, the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

Sri Navin Kumar, the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Jehanabad. 3.

Md. Shibgatulah, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jehanabad. 4.

Sri Nivedita Kumari, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Jehanabad. 5.

Sri Ram Nath Kumar, the Circle Officer, Ratnifaridpur Block, DistrictJehanabad. 6.

Sri S.P. Kumar, the Anchal Amin, Ratnifaridpur Block, District- Jehanabad. 7.

Binod Kumar son of Late Parshuram Sharma resident of Village- Galimapur, P.O. Sikandarpur, Police Station- Shakurabad, District- Jehanabad. 8.

Pramod Kumar son of Late Parshuram Sharma resident of VillageGalimapur, P.O. Sikandarpur, Police Station- Shakurabad, DistrictJehanabad. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamlendra Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalit Kishore ( Ag ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 12-01-2024

1. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the order of this Court dated 06.08.2019, passed in CWJC No.15599 of 2019, has already been complied with, inasmuch as the Circle Officer, Ratnifaridpur Block, DistrictJehanabad, vide letter dated 17.06.2022, has communicated to the Officer In-Charge, Shakurabad, Block-Ratnifaridpur that the encroachment in question has been removed, hence he should

Patna High Court MJC No.1325 of 2020(4) dt.12-01-2024 2/2 ensure that in future no encroachment reoccurs.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already taken recourse to the due process of law for redressal of his subsisting grievances, hence it is submitted that the present petition be disposed off.

3. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed off.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U