Patna High CourtCWJC/15866/2017disposed

Faiyaz Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-10-05Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15866 of 2017 ====================================================== Faiyaz Ahmad, Son of Late Mukhtar Ahmad, Resident of MohallaBudhuchak, P.S.- Sahayk Katihar, District- Katihar, Presently residing at Nehal Lodge Bakarganj Gola Road, Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The D.I.G. Purnea Range, Purnea, District- Purnea.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea.

4. The District Magistrate, Katihar.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar.

6. The S.H.O. Sahayak P.S., District- Katihar.

7. The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Katihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Md. Anisur Rahman, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Md. N.H.Khan, SC-21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-10-2018 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

The present writ application has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to provide security to the life of the petitioner and protection to his property by vacating the land appertaining to Khata No.412, Plot No.243, situated in Mohalla-Budhuchak Officers Colony, P.S.-Sahayak, DistrictKatihar from the possession of one Md. Abdullah who has occupied the land in question forcefully.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the land in question from one Sabir

Patna High Court CWJC No.15866 of 2017(2) dt.05-10-2018 2/2 Khan and constructed a hut over it, but the same has been forcefully occupied by one Abdullah.

However, now the compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and Abdullah, a statement to that effect has been made in paragraph no.5 of the supplementary affidavit. In the circumstances, the writ application has become infructuous.

Accordingly, it is disposed of as having become infructuous.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U