Mostt. Manorama Devi v. Mostt. Sharda Devi And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.15431 of 2013 dt.16-01-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15431 of 2013 IN C.R. 59 of 2010 =========================================================== Mostt. Manorama Devi wife of Late Upendra Nath Srivastava resident of village & P.O. Susta, Police Station Sadar Munsifi East Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Mostt. Sharda Devi w/o Late Nawal Kishore Prasad. 2.Sri Ramesh Kumar.

3.Sri Anil Kumar.

4.Sri Alok Kumar.

5.Sri Narendra Kumar 6.Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad.

7.Sri Dilip Kumar.

8.Sri Prawin Kumar.

Opposite Party No. 2 to 8 are sons of Late Nawal Kishor Prasad, Adv 9.Smt Chanda Devi w/o Sri Sudhir Kumar.

10.Ragini Devi w/o Sri Anil Kumar Both D/O Late Nawal Kishore Prasad.

11.Sri Anoop Kumar 12.Sri Ashish Kumar Both sons of Sri Ramesh Kumar all residents of village & P.O. Susta, P.S. Sadar, Munsifi and sub-division- East, District Muzaffarpur. ....Defendants.....Appellants..... Opposite Parties ....Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.P. Sinha, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vishnudeo Narayan, Sr. Adv & Mr. Manoj Kr, Adv =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-01-2017 Heard Mr. N.P Sinha, learned counsel appearing on

Patna High Court CWJC No.15431 of 2013 dt.16-01-2017 behalf of the petitioner, who has submitted that the requisite information has been obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act which supports the contention of the petitioner that the suit land is not covered by the consolidation proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has accepted that the said information was not made available to the petitioner and therefore, the attention of the court below was not drawn to the said fact. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

The application is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy available to him in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the respondents is present. (V. Nath, J) Ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 20.01.2017 Transmission Date N.A.