The High Court dismissed an infructuous writ petition as the impugned order disposing of the petitioners' land was implemented. The court directed the petitioners to pursue their claims in the pending title suit.
Petition dismissed; relief to raise issues in pending Title Suit No.518 of 2008.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8131 of 2014
====================================================== 1. Srikant Singh Yadav, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh Yadav 2. Uma Kant Singh Yadav, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh Yadav Both (1) and (2) are Resident of Village- Kehora, P.S.- Tekari, DistrictGaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Collector, Gaya 2. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Tekari, Gaya 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya 4. The Circle Officer, Tekari, Gaya 5. Bhuneshwar Manjhi, S/O Late Bhona Manjhi, Resident of VillageMalsari, P.O.- Lakshmipur, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya 6. Mandal Manjhi, S/o Late Bithal Manjhi, Resident of Village- Malsari, P.O.- Lakshmipur, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent nos.1to4 : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7 Mr.S.K.Saraf, AC to GP-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 19-09-2016 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has fairly conceded that the impugned order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Tekari, Gaya, as contained in Annexure-4, has already been implemented and the petitioners have been dispossessed from the lands in question. However, he contends that Title Suit No.518 of 2008 is still pending in the court of learned Sub-Judge-1st , Gaya. In above view of the matter, since the order impugned has already been implemented, the present writ petition has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8131 of 2014 (2) dt.19-09-2016
2
However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of facts and law, which may be available to them with respect to the lands in question, in the aforesaid pending Title Suit No.518 of 2008 said to be pending in the court of learned SubJudge-1st , Gaya and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court shall bind the parties.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Arvind/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to maintain a writ petition when the impugned order has already been implemented?
Whether the petitioners can raise facts and law issues in a pending title suit regarding the lands in question?
Srikant Singh Yadav
Uma Kant Singh Yadav
The State of Bihar
Bhuneshwar Manjhi
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
