Manoj Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17772 of 2023 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Gupta Son of Sri Jagat Sah, Resident of Village and P.O.- Chandi Asthan, P.S. Govindganj, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 3.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Areraj, District- East Champaran. 4.

The Circle Officer, Areraj, District- East Champaran. 5.

The Revenue Officer, Areraj, District- East Champaran. 6.

The Project Officer, Areraj, District- East Champaran deputed as Magistrate by S.D.O., Areraj, East Champaran.

7.

The S.H.O., Govindganj Police Station, District- East Champaran. 8.

Dhrupnarayan Sah, Son of Late Sitaram Sah, Resident of Village - Chandi Asthan, P.S. Govindganj, District- East Champaran. 9.

Rajendra Sah, Son of Late Ramrup Sah, Resident of Village - Chandi Asthan, P.S. Govindganj, District- East Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4 For the Pvt. Respondent :

Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 28-08-2024 Though the present writ petition has been filed for removal of encroachment from Government Gairmajarua Aam land (Rasta) situated at Mauza-Chandi Asthan, Thana No. 209, Khata No. 158, Khesra No. 117, area 0-05 decimals, for which encroachment proceedings had been initiated by the Circle Officer, Areraj, District-East Champaran vide Encroachment Case No. 23 of 2017-18, however, it is the contention of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.17772 of 2023(3) dt.28-08-2024 2/2 learned counsel for the respondent-State that the encroachment in question has already stood removed and the petitioner has also submitted his affidavit to the effect that the encroachment in question has already been removed.

2.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that nothing survives for consideration in the present writ petition, hence the same stands disposed off.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U