Patna High CourtL.P.A/415/2016disposed

Shankar Pandit v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-10-30The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.415 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13410 of 2012 ====================================================== Shankar Pandit, son of Ram Autar Pandit, Resident of Mohalla - Sanha Naya Tola Musechak, P.S. - Sahebpur Kamal, District - Begusarai. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. District Magistrate, Begusarai.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, Ballia, District - Begusarai.

4. The Circle Officer, (Anchal Adhikari), Sahebpur Kamal Anchal), District - Begusarai.

5. Anchal Amin, Sahebpur Kamal, Anchal in the District of Begusarai.

6. The Officer-in-charge, Sahebpur Kamal Police Station, DistrictBegusarai.

7. Dorik Pandit, Son of Late Aklu Pandit, Resident of Mohalla- Saha Naya Tola (Musechak), P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Dist - Begusarai.

8. Shambhu Pandit, son of Ramotar Pandit, Resident of Mohalla- Saha Naya Tola (Musechak), P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Dist - Begusarai. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Partha Sarthi- Ga11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 30-10-2017 Re.: I. A. No. 1826 of 2016 I.A. No. 1826 of 2016 has been filed for condoning the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I.A. No. 1826 of 2016 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Keeping in view the fact that in pursuance to the

Patna High Court LPA No.415 of 2016 (4) dt.30-10-2017 2/2 order passed by learned Writ Court on 05.10.2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 13410 of 2012, the D.C.L.R., Balia has passed appropriate/final order for execution of original order passed on 13.12.2011 (Annexure-1), no further indulgence is required to be taken in the matter.

Now if anybody including the appellant is aggrieved by the action taken, they may take recourse to the remedy as available under law.

With the aforesaid liberty, the appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- U