Bharat Mandal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2953 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10545 of 2015 =========================================================== Bharat Mandal, son of Late Doman Mandal, Resident of Village- Nirmali, P.S.- Nirmali, Ward No.12, District- Supaul.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Baijnath Yadav, the Collector, Supaul.

3. Sudhanshu Shekhar, the Dy. Collector, Land Reforms Department, Nirmali, Supaul.

4. Rabindra Chaupal, the Circle Officer, Nirmali Anchal, Nirmali.

5. Baijnath Yadav, the Settlement Assistant Officer, Nirmali, Supaul.

6. Mr. Shubh Moorty, the Bhudan Yagya Committee, through its Chairman, Gardanibagh, Distt- Patna.

7. Ram Balak Chaudhary, the Bhudan Yagya Committee, through its Chairman, Gardanibagh, Distt- Patna.

8. Sri Murli Pansari, son of Late Ghan Shyam Pansari R/o Village- P.S.- Nirmali, Ward No.11, Station Road, District- Supaul.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Satyendra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-04-2017 This application has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents for violation of the order dated 19.1.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10545 of 2015. 2.

On perusal of the order, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has withdrawn the writ application with the liberty to

Patna High Court MJC No.2953 of 2016 dt.07-04-2017 2/2 approach the Revenue Officer in terms of Section 14-A of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 for redressal of his valid grievances with respect to the lands in question as also with respect to the issues raised in the main writ application.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application before that Forum, but the case is not preceded further.

4.

Proceeding of a case is one thing and violation of the order is another thing. In the present case, the petitioner himself has withdrawn the main writ application with certain liberty. As the order itself speaks withdrawal of the main writ application, the contempt proceeding against the opposite parties do not arise. 5.

Accordingly, this contempt application is dismissed. (Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N/A.

Uploading Date 11.04.2017 Transmission Date N/A.