IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13908 of 2017 ====================================================== Deomanti Devi wife of Faudari Singh Resident of Village Lodhway, P.S. Fatehpur, District Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The Collector, Gaya. 4. The D.C.L.R., Sadar, Gaya. 5. Laxmi Singh daughter of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh 6. Sunaina Devi daughter of Narsingh Lal Singh 7. Savitri Devi daughter of Raj Narayan Singh 8. Mundrika Devi wife of Chandradeo Singh Respondent no. 6 to 8 are residents of Village Lodhway, P.S. Fatehpur, District Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ansul Aaryan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25 Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, AC to SC-25 For respondent no.5 : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 08-07-2025 Heard Mr. Ansul Aaryan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arif Daula Siddiquie for the State and Mr. Siddharth Harsh, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s: (i) for quashing the order dated 01/03/2017 passed in LDR Appeal no. 08/2014 by the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, whereby and where under the learned Commissioner has set aside the order dated 11/01/2014 passed by the L.R.D.C. Sadar Patna High Court CWJC No.13908 of 2017(3) dt.08-07-2025 2/2 Gaya, in LDR Case no. 290/13-14 and directed him to take necessary steps for correction in revisional Survery Khatiyan with respect to land in question in the name of the respondent no.5 may be issued; (ii) any other writ/write, direction/directions order/orders or direction/directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may require and deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be issued. 3. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sole petitioner is no more and as such liberty be granted to heirs to move afresh, if he/she/they so want. 4. In view of the development that has taken place during the pendeny of the petition, granting liberty to the heirs, the writ petition is disposed of. 5. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of. Ravi/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U