Patna High CourtCWJC/9327/2005dismissed

Umesh Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-08-22Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9327 of 2005 ====================================================== Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Suresh Prasad Singh, resident of village-Chhoti Lagma, P.O.-Shivkund, P.S.-Dharhara, District-Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Divisional Commissioner-Munger at Munger.

3. The Collector-Munger at Munger.

4. The L.R.D.C.-Munger at Munger.

5. Shiv Nandan Singh, son of late Biranchi Singh, resident of villageLagma, P.S.-Shivkund, P.S.-Moffasil, present P.S.-Dharhara, DistrictMunger. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent nos.1to4 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, AC to PAAG-I ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2016 The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 06.09.2002 passed in Munger Revenue Mutation Revision Case No.9 of 199697 as also analogous Revision Case No.11 of 1996-97 and Revision Case No.10 of 1996-97 by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Munger, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby the aforesaid revision applications including the revision application filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed for the reasons recorded in that order. In the present case, by an order dated 26.02.

2007, four weeks time was granted to the petitioner for filing substitution petition vice deceased respondent no.5, the contesting respondent, but that order was not complied with. Thereafter, by an order dated 27.09.2007, once again petitioner was granted one week peremptory time for filing substitution petition vice deceased respondent no.5.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9327 of 2005 (5) dt.22-08-2016 From the office note, it appears that, on account of non-compliance of the Court's peremptory order dated 27.09.2007, the present writ petition stood rejected as against the deceased respondent no.5. In above view of the matter, the writ petition has become incompetent and cannot proceed. Consequently, the present writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U