IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10396 of 2017 ====================================================== Vishnu Deo Yadav S/o late Sant Yadav R/o Sonwari, P.S.- Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 4. The Additional Collector, Madhubani. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani. 6. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Sadar, Madhubani. 7. The Circle officer, Raj Nagar, Madhubani. 8. Mukti Narayan Gupta S/o Laxmi Narayan Gupta R/o Village- Satghara, P.S. Raj Nagar, District-Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the State : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 22-04-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though Mrs. Nutan Sahay, learned counsel for the State is present. 2. The present application has been preferred for the grant of following relief: “For issuance of an appropriate order/orders, direction/directions including a writ preferably in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 23-05-1988 passed by the Bataidari Magistrate, Madhubani whereby and where Patna High Court CWJC No.10396 of 2017(2) dt.22-04-2025 2/3 under he has rejected the claim of the petitioner of Bataidri U/s 48 (E) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 with respect to a land measuring 1 Bigha 17 Katha 18 dhurs appertaining to Khesara No. 6677, 6678 and 6679 situated in mauza Pariharpur, P.S.-Raj Nagar in the district of Madhubani who was threatened with ejectment from the said land by the landlord. Further to direct the respondent No. 4 to constitute a Bataidari Board under the Provision of section 48E (3) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, so that dispute between the under raiyat and landlord may be settled. The petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble court to grant him any other relief/reliefs to which he is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned State Counsel has taken this Court to paragraphs 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed in the year 2020 by the respondent no. 3 to 7 to show that the petitioner has concealed the fact that he has lost the Bataidari Case No. 26 of 1988 and the claim of the petitioner was dropped. Patna High Court CWJC No.10396 of 2017(2) dt.22-04-2025 3/3 4. Though the case is fit to be dismissed on the aforesaid facts that has come in the counter affidavit, in view of the fact that there is no appearance, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U