← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/21570/2018disposed

Adhikaro Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2025-09-22Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21570 of 2018 ====================================================== Adhikaro Devi Wife of Janki Ray, Resident of Village- Bachari, P.O.- Bachari, P.S.- Piro, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at District Arrah 2.

Registrar, Bhojpur, Arra.

3.

Sub Registrar, Piro, Bhojpur, Ara.

4.

District Certificate Officer Bhojpur at Arrah. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kalyan Shankar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 22-09-2025

1. The Learned counsel for the petitioner reported to the Court that the petitioner is no more and he intends to file a substitution petition to substitute the legal heirs of the petitioner.

2. However, the Learned counsel for the petitioner reports to the Court that a notice was pasted at the house of the petitioner, even after her death, inspite of stay granted by this Court. In view of the death of the petitioner the legal heirs may be permitted to challenge the notice.

3. Permission is granted accordingly.

4. On perusal of the Writ petition, it is evident that the relief sought against the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.21570 of 2018(5) dt.22-09-2025 2/2 is for quashing the order dated 19.04.2017 passed in Case No. 94/2016 by the Assistant Registrar, Patna (II) For quashing of the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the District Certificate Officer, Bhojpur in consequence of the order dated 19.04.2017. These notices, specifically, the Orders dated 19.04.2017 and 20.03.2018 are against the original petitioner i.e. Adhikaro Devi. If at all the respondents intends to proceed further they have to issue notice to the legal heirs and therefore, question for substitution of the legal heirs in this case shall not arise.

5. However, the subsequent development is not part of the Writ petition, there is no necessity for substitution, therefore, the legal heirs of the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the notice i.e. subsequent developments.

6. In view of the above the Writ petition shall stand closed.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) amitkr/- U