Manoj Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3471 of 2012 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Mandal Son of Ram Prakash Mandal Resident of Village Ballipur Parsuram, P.S. Hathauri, District Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga
2. The Additional Collector, Samastipur
3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Rosera, Distt.- Samastipur
4. Rabindra Narain Chaudhary Son of Mahendra Narain Chaudhary Resident of Village Ballipur, P.S. Hathauri, District- Samastipur
5. Chandrika Devi Wife of Late Vishwanath Jha Resident of Village Ballipur Parsuram, P.S. Hathauri, District- Samastipur
6. Binod Kumar Mandal Son of Ram Prakash Mandal Resident of Village Ballipur Parsuram, P.S. Hathauri, District- Samastipur
7. Smt. Rina Devi Wife of Manoj Kumar Mandal Resident of Village Ballipur Parsuram, P.S. Hathauri, District- Samastipur
8. Smt. Nitu Devi Wife of Binod Kumar Mandal Resident of Village Ballipur Parsuram, P.S. Hathauri, District- Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kr No.2 Ga5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-09-2018 The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 20.04.2010, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga in L.C.R. No.5 of 2008-09 by which the Divisional Commissioner upheld the order dated 19.03.2008, passed by Additional Collector, Samastipur in Ceiling Appeal No.111 of 2005-06 and order dated 06.05.2005, passed by D.C.L.R., Rosera, District Samastipur in Ceiling Pre-emption Case No.26 of 2003. The order was passed in favour of respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.3471 of 2012 dt.17-09-2018 2/2 no.4 to 8. Now the writ petition has already been dismissed against respondents no.4 to 8 due to non-compliance of the order dated 12.03.2012.
2. In this view of the fact, this writ petition would not survive. Respondents no.1 to 3 are State-respondents and they are formal parties. As this writ petition would not survive against respondent nos.1 to 3, accordingly the same is dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27.09.2018 Transmission Date NA