IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6822 of 2015 ====================================================== 1. Yogendra Prasad Singh S/o Late Deo Nath Singh. 2. Shailesh Kumar Singh. S/o Late Mahendra Singh. Both resident of Village - Paharpura, PS.- Haspura, Daud Nagar, P.S.- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Gaya Division, Gaya. 3. The Collector-Cum District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Daud-Nagar, District - Aurangabad. 5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Daud-Nagar, District - Aurangabad. 6. The Circle Officer, Haspura, Daud Nagar, District - Aurangabad. 7. The Officer In-charge, Haspura Police Station, P.S.- Haspura, District - Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Aag10- P.N.Shahi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 08-07-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners though the State is present. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s: (i) a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/s direction/s commanding the respondent no. 6 to mutate the land in favour of petitioners and issue rent- receipt to the petitioners with respect to land which is mentioned in Annexure 5 to the writ petition and further to direct the respondent authorities to provide physical possession to the Patna High Court CWJC No.6822 of 2015(3) dt.08-07-2025 2/2 petitioners over the said land; (ii) for any other relief/s to which the petitioner is found entitled for. 3. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 6 is on record and learned counsel for the petitioners submit that it is purely a civil matter, the land on which, the petitioner is laying claim is already occupied by the 14 persons on the basis of sale-deed and who have not been even impleaded as party respondents in the present case. 4. The counter affidavit was filed in the year 2016 with service of copy to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Uday Pratap Singh on 21.04.2016 but there is no rebuttal to it. 5. The case is even otherwise fit to be dismissed. However, since there is no appearance, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Ravi/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U