← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/443/2018disposed

Ramanand Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2024-01-11Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.443 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6585 of 2017 ====================================================== Ramanand Prasad Son of late Ram Ekbal Sah Resident of Village-Ashogi P.S. Purnahia, Distt-Sitamarhi, At Present residing, Ward no-2,Riga road Jankisthan, Sitamarhi Bazar, Riga. Sitamarh, Bhabdepur, District-Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, The Director Department of Revenue and Land Reforms Government of Bihar, 3.

Mr. Shri Rajkumar, The District Magistrate, Sheohar 4.

Mr. Distt Land Acquisition Officer, Sheohar.

5.

Mr. Md. Atak Alam, The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheohar. 6.

Mr. Ashok Kumar, the Block Development Officer, Purnahiya, P.S. Purnahiya, District-Sheohar 7.

Mr. Lalit Prasad, the Circle Officer, Purnahiya, P.S. Purnahiya, DistrictSheohar 8.

Mahesh Prasad, Son of Late Binda Sah, 9.

Lochan Sah, 10.

Swesh Sah, 11.

Vijay Sah, O. Party no. 8 to 11 son of Late Yadav Sah @ Prasad, 12.

Premi Sah, 13.

Bishawnath Sah, Both the Opp. Party son of Jivan Sah, 14.

Rupchan Ram, Son of Pachu Ram, All resident of Village- Ashogi, P.S.- Purnhiya, Distt- Sheohar.

15.

Nirbhay Niraj Jha, Son of Resident of Village- Katsari, P.S.- Purnhiya, DistSheohar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Devendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam - Aag 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 11-01-2024 In compliance of the order of this Court dated 1.8.2017, passed in CWJC No. 6585 of 2017, the Collector,

Patna High Court MJC No.443 of 2018(5) dt.11-01-2024 2/2 Sheohar, has already passed a reasoned order dated 19.12.2017, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 2.

In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2017, he may be granted liberty to assail the same. Liberty, so sought, is granted. 3.

The present contempt petition stands disposed off as not pressed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U