Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 97743 (PAT)

Laldeo Pathak and Anr v. The State Of Bihar and Ors

CWJC/24773/2018 · 2025-12-02

Rajiv Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24773 of 2018 ====================================================== 1. Laldeo Pathak S/o Late Balbhadra Pathak 2. Bal Krishna Pathak S/o Laldeo Pathak Both residents of village-Mahuain, P.S-Guraru, Distt.-Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4. The Additional Collector, Gaya 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Tikari Gaya 6. Nand Kishore Yadav S/o Late Ranchu Yadav R/vill-Rasalpur Tola Karamdih, P.S-Konch,Distt.-Gaya. 7. Hazarimal Kanhaiya Lal S/o Sri Sandhu Sharan Pathak 8. Amresh Kumar Pathak S/o Sri Shambhudutt Pathak Both r/vill-Mahuain, P.S-Guraru, Distt.-Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Verma, Advocate : Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arifdaula Siddhiqui, AC to SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 02-12-2025 Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arifdaula Siddhiqui, learned counsel representing the State. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s): “for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court CWJC No.24773 of 2018(2) dt.02-12-2025 2/2 Chairman of Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T.Case No. 1011 of 2016 through which said B.L.T. Case has been allowed and concurrent findings of three learned courts below has been reversed erroneously and illegally against the mandate of the law enshrined under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the passage of time, the writ petition has become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as become infructuous. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U