Danilal Mandal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23027 of 2018 ====================================================== Danilal Mandal son of Late Bahadur Mandal resident of Village and Post Purwana Tola Dubeypur, P.S. Hathauri, Anchal Shivajinagar, District Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 3.

The Secretary Bihar Land Tribunal Patna.

4.

The Additional Collector Samastipur.

5.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Rosera Samastipur. 6.

Ram Dulari Devi wife of Sri Ram Pukar Mandal Resident of Village and Post Purwana Tola Dubeypur, P.S. Hathauri, District- Samastipur. 7.

Ugant Prasad Mandal son of Late Raghunandan Mandal resident of Village and P.O. Parwana Tola Dubeyapur, P.S. Hathauri, District- Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sajid Salim Khan , SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-11-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s):

against the order dated 12.1.18 passed by the Hon'ble Chaiman, Bihar Land Tribunal Patna in B.L.T.Case no. 557 of 2017 and the order dated 28.3.17 passed by the learned Divisional commissioner Darbhanga in land ceiling Revision no.267/13 by which the learned court below had erroneously dismissed the revision filed

Patna High Court CWJC No.23027 of 2018(2) dt.11-11-2025 2/2 by the Petitioner and the order dated 20.4.13 passed by the learned Addl.Collector Samastipur in land ceiling Appeal no.

105/2011 upholding the order dt. 15.11.11 of the D.C.L. R. Rosera passed in land ceiling case ne. 10/2007 whereby he had rejected the premption case of the petitioner without any legal consideration and the order passed by the courts below are required to be interfered by this Hon'ble court.

3. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a pre-emption matter which with the passage of time has become infructuous.

4. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U