Patna High CourtCWJC/10484/2013dismissed

Mostt. Sudama Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-02-11Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10484 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Mostt. Sudama Devi Wife Of Late Ram Dass Raut Resident Of Village + P.O. Dhangar Madanpur, Block Cum Circle Parsauni, P.S. Parsauni SubDivision - Belsand District - Sitamarhi Presently Residing Under C/O Sri Shiv Shankar Raut, Mohalla Bajrangpuri, P.O. Guljarbagh P.S. Alamganj District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Collector, Sitamarhi

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Belsand District Sitamarhi

4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Belsand Distt. Sitamarhi

5. The Circle Officer, Parsauni Circle, Parsauni District - Sitamarhi

6. Sri Bitan Raut Son Of Late Basawan Raut Resident Of Village Dhangar Madanpur Block Cum Circle Parsauni, P.S. Parsauni, Sub-Division Belsand District Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 11-02-2016 Heard both sides.

For the purpose of disposal of this writ application, I.A.No. 1173 of 2016 is allowed and the heirs of sole petitioner, as mentioned in para 3 of the application, are substituted in her place. Counsel for the State after verifying the order dated 29.07.2012, which is impugned in this writ application, has rightly contended that no order under any provision of the Act has been passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. The petitioner seeks implementation of the said order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10484 of 2013 (2) dt.11-02-2016 2/2 In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Partition Suit is pending between the parties. The writ court would not be the executing court of the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. That apart it appears that the order of D.C.L.R. has not been passed under any provision of the Act.

The application is, therefore, misconceived. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) singh/- U