Hari Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11865 of 2000 ====================================================== Hari Yadav son of Late Kuldeep Yadav, resident of Village Gohari Tola Navkadih, Police Station Chanan, District Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna

3. The Collector, Lakhisarai

4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Lakhisarai

5. Damodar Yadav son of Late Bhikari Yadav

6. Jai Ram Yadav

7. Bido Yadav Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are sons of Late Rameshwar Yadav Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are residents of village Gohari, P.O.Bannubagicha, Police Station Chanan, District Lakhisarai .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Kumari Amrita, GP 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2016 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, though I have heard the learned GP3, appearing on behalf of he respondent nos. 1 to 4.

The present writ petition arises out of a proceeding under Section 16 (3) of The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, On examination of the records and in view of the office note dated 21.09.2016, this Court finds that the present writ petition stood rejected as against the contesting respondent nos. 6 and 7 on account of non-compliance of the court's peremptory order dated 01.02.2001.

The learned GP 3 submits that the restoration petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for restoring the writ petition as

Patna High Court CWJC No.11865 of 2000 (5) dt.22-09-2016 2/2 against the aforesaid respondents has also stood dismissed by order dated 08.03.2016 passed in MJC No. 2705 of 2001. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition has become incompetent and cannot proceed further on account of its dismissal as against the respondent nos. 6 and 7.

In that view of the matter, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the writ petition, as a whole. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/- U