Patna High CourtMJC/923/2014disposed

Jitman Sah And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-01-08Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.923 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16461 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Jitman Sah, Son of Late Suryabali Sah, Resident of Village- Ekderba, P.O. Bargaon, P.S. Bagaha, District- West Champaran

2. (i) Mostt. Sumitra Devi, wife of late Indrajeet Prasad, (ii) Anand Mani Singh, son of late Indrajeet Prasad, (iii) Bijay Shankar Singh, son of Late Indrajeet Prasad, All Residents of Village- Nehura, P.S. Bagaha, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Rameshwar Singh, the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Principal Secretary, (Sri Amrit Lal Mina), Department of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

5. The District Magistrate, (Sri Abhay Kr. Singh), West Champaran at Bettiah.

6. Sri Basudeo Baitha Nirala, Block Development Officer, Narkatiyaganj, District- West Champaran ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastva, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Subhash Pd. Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 08-01-2019 Ref.: I. A. No. 7769 of 2015 For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, bearing I.A. No. 7769 of 2015, the same is allowed. The name of the original petitioner no.2, who died during the pendency of this case, is expunged and in his place, his legal heirs, namely, Mostt. Sumitra Devi (wife) and two sons, namely, Anand Mani Singh and Bijay Shankar Singh, are impleaded as petitioner nos. 2 (i) (ii) and (iii) in the array of parties. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

Patna High Court MJC No.923 of 2014(2) dt.08-01-2019 2/2 opposite parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the order of this Court dated 29.08.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16461 of 2012, the opposite parties have rejected the claim of the petitioners erroneously. He submits that the petitioners may be granted liberty to challenge the decision of the opposite parties in appropriate proceeding.

With the aforesaid liberty, this application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U