Moti Lal Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22057 of 2014 =========================================================== Moti Lal Sah S/o Kanchal Sah Resident of Village - Jawaripur, P.O. - Lakhanpur, P.S. - Lauriya, District - West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary.

2. District Sub Registrar, West Champaran at Bettiah, Bettiah.

3. Additional Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah, Bettiah.

4. District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah, Bettiah.

5. Circle Officer, Lauriya, West Champaran at Bettiah, Bettiah. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Madan Mohan, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mrs. Pallavi Pandey, Advocates For the State :

Mr. AC to SC 17 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-09-2017 Heard Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

"(i) To issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 02.12.2014 (Annexure-2), whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 2 has asked petitioner to deposit the amount for the registration of lease of settlement of Sairat.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of writ of Mandamus

Patna High Court CWJC No.22057 of 2014 dt.12-09-2017 2 / 2 to allow the petitioner to collect Revenue from Lauria Mela in the pendency of this writ application.

(iii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the members of the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Upon considering the matter, the Court finds that at the relevant time, when the petitioner had moved the Court, he was being forced to get registered the deed relating to the settlement Sairat in question, by paying a much higher amount. However, the period of Sairat was for 2014-15 and, as of today, the petitioner having availed of the settlement and also having paid the entire auction amount to the authorities concerned, in the view of the Court, nothing remains to be adjudicated as there cannot be any subsisting threat to the petitioner with regard to any coercive action relating to registration of the instrument in question.

4. Learned counsel for the State also does not controvert the position.

5. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U