Patna High CourtCWJC/3025/2007disposed

Parsuram Pandey v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-04-13Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3025 of 2007 ====================================================== Parsuram Pandey , son of Late Mandeo Pandey, resident of village Murarpatti, Police Station Nautan, District Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner, Saran at Chapra

3. the District magistrate, Siwan

4. the Sub Divisional Officer, Siwan, Sadar

5. the Circle officer, Mairwa, Siwan

6. the Officer -in-Charge, P.s. Nautan, siwan

7. Sri pradeep Ram son of Late Chandeshwar Ram resident of village Murar Patti, P.S. Nautan, District Siwan .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kr.Thakur Mr. Vikash Kumar Mr. Vikas Kumar For the Respondent/s : AC to AAG No. 6 Mr. Arun Kumar -1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-04-2015 Heard Sri Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to AAG No.6 as well as Sri Arun Kumar No. 1, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.7.

The present writ petition was filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to restore the possession of the land appertaining to Khata No. 232 at Mauza- Murarpatti, P.S. Nautan, District - Siwan.

In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 i.e. District Magistrate, Siwan and in

Patna High Court CWJC No.3025 of 2007 (9) dt.13-04-2015 2/2 paragraph no.5 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the possession of the land of the share of the petitioner has been delivered to the petitioner and petitioner has already taken over the possession. It has also been indicated in paragraph no. 4 that land was demarcated in between the parties. By way of filing reply to the counter affidavit petitioner also reiterates that during the pendency of the writ petition the Circle Officer, Mairwa has complied the order of the Commissioner and restored the possession of the land in question to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that there is no need to pass any positive order. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U