Jogi Yadav @ Yogi Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23034 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.
Jogi Yadav @ Yogi Yadav son of Late Hansi Yadav 2.
Sikandar Yadav, son of Late Banarsi Yadav 3.
Balmiky Yadav, Son of Late Hansi Yadav 1 to 3 are resident of villageSondiha, P.S.- Pasraha, District-Khagaria 4.
Bindeshwari Das, son of Late Jhari Das 5.
Kamleshwari Das, son Late Sukho Das 6.
Eno Das @ Endradeo Das, son of Late Gudar Das 4 to 6 are resident of village-Mahaddipur, P.S.- Pasraha, District-Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar.
2.
The Collector, Khagaria 3.
The S.P. Khagaria, 4.
The District Land Acquisition Officer Khagaria 5.
The Additional Collector, Khagaria 6.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gagari, Khagaria 7.
The Circle Officer, Gogri, Khagaria 8.
The Circle Officer, Parbatta, Khagaria 9.
The Officer Inchrge, Pasraha.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
None For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Raj Kishore Roy -GP-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-02-2026 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners though the State is present.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):
"(i) That this is an application for setting aside the notice dt 30-7-2018 issued in
Patna High Court CWJC No.23034 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026 2/2 Encroachment Case No.4/2001-02 under the signature of the Circle Officer, Gogri by which petitioners and others is directed to remove the encroachment from the place where 72 houses of the receipt of the notice.
(ii) To further the set aside the entire proceeding of the Encroachment Case No. 4/200102 which was initiated on the application of Rohit Kumar and 74 others for removal of the encroachment from the Pasraha Railway Station to village-Sondiha.
(iii) For any other relief(s) for which the petitioner found entitled to in the facts of the case."
3. For want of prosecution, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U