Vinod Sharma v. The State Of Bihar Through Sri Dipak Kumar Singh, The Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2035 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7024 of 2024 ====================================================== Vinod Sharma son of Late Keshwar Sharma, Resident of Bhelwa Tola, Ward No. 17, P.O.- and P.S.- Jaynagar, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Sri Dipak Kumar Singh, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

Sri Manish Kumar, the Commissioner, Darbhanga Commissioner, Darbhanga 3.

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, the Collector, Madhubani 4.

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, the Collector-cum-District Registrar, Madhubani 5.

Shri Rakesh Kumar, the Deputy Collector, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Madhubani 6.

Sri Vivek Kumar, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani 7.

Shri Kusum Lal Paswan, the Circle Officer, Jay Nagar, Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nawnit Kumar Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned GP-25, Shri Ramadhar Singh.

2.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, at the outset, submits that the instant contempt application was filed for initiating a proceeding of attempt against the OP No. 6 for willful disobedience of the order dated 27-1-2025 passed in CWJC No. 7024 of 2024. The learned State counsel next submits that CWJC No. 7024 of 2024 was disposed of with

Patna High Court MJC No.2035 of 2025(5) dt.12-09-2025 2/2 a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of four months, if filed on or before 10-2-2025. It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner stands disposed of by the Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani by an order dated 2-9-2025, as such the order has been complied with.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, as such the Court does not feel persuaded to proceed any further with the contempt application. 4.

Accordingly, the instant contempt application is dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U