Ram Kamat And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4864 of 2014 ====================================================== 1.

Ram Kamat and Anr Son Of Late Madhuri Kamat 2.

Lakshman Kamat Son Of Late Madhuri Kamat Both Residents Of VillageParaul, Police Station- Arer, Anchal- Benipatti, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga 3.

The District Magistrate, Madhubani 4.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Benipatti, District- Madhubani 5.

The Circle Officer, Benipatti, District- Madhubani 6.

Devendra Kamat Son Of Late Sundar Yadav 7.

Ajay Kamat Son Of Late Ghutur Das 8.

Muneshwar Kamat Son Of Late Mauzi Kamat 9.

Sangeet Kamat Son Of Late Asharfi Kamat 10.

Teju Dutta Son Of Late Abhinandan Kamat.

6 To 10 Are Residents Of Village- Paraul, Police Station- Arer, AnchalBenipatti, District- Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to GP-04 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2025 Heard Mr. Ratnakar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned AC to GP-04 appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for commanding the respondents to implement the order dated 23.02.2012 passed in Case No. 137 of 2011-12 by the respondent no.4 (The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Benipatti, District- Madhubani) and further direction upon the respondent

Patna High Court CWJC No.4864 of 2014(7) dt.30-01-2025 2/2 no.4 to implement the order dated 23.02.2012 in connection with Case No. 137 of 2011-12.

3. Learned counsel for the private respondents had assailed the order before the learned Commissioner in Land Dispute Case No. 152 of 2013 but the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

4. Against that order the private respondents filed a case before the learned B.L.T., arising B.L.T. Case No. 565 of 2013 in which the learned B.L.T. has set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and the matter was remanded back to the learned Commissioner for taking a fresh decision after hearing all the concerned.

5. Learned AC to GP-04 for the State submits that in view of the subsequent development, the prayer made in the writ petition does not exist, so the present writ petition has become infructuous.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) ajay/- U