Patna High Court
Sukalu RamversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous because the underlying title suit had been disposed of.
Summary
The petitioner, Sukalu Ram, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 13 July 2018 passed by the B.L.T. Court, which had rejected his case on the same grounds as an earlier order of the Additional Collector. He also sought any other appropriate relief. During the hearing, the petitioner disclosed that his Title Suit No. 140 of 2014, which related to the same land dispute, had been finally disposed of. The court considered that the disposal of the title suit rendered the writ petition moot. Consequently, the court held that the petition had become infructuous and ordered its disposal. No substantive merits of the writ were examined as the petition was deemed unnecessary.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of a writ petition when the underlying civil suit concerning the same subject matter has been finally disposed of?
Subjects
- writ petition
- civil writ jurisdiction
- mutation
- land reform
- infructuous
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20370 of 2018
======================================================
Sukalu Ram Son of Ghurfekan Ram, resident of Village- Gangwaliya, P.O.-
Besahee, P.S. Anchal- Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.
3. The Additional Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua.
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reform, Mohania, Kaimur.
5. The Anchal Adhikari, Kudra, District- Kaimur.
6. Bechan Ram, Son of Late Gharbharan Ram, Village- Gangwaliya, P.O.-
Basahee, Anchal- Kudra, District- Kaimur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 06-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Amrendra Narayan Rai, learned counsel
representing the respondent no.6 as also Mr. Nutan Sahay, learned
AC to AAG-12 representing the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant
of following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of the appropriate
writ/writs for quashing the order dated
13.07.2018 passed by the B.L.T. Court in short
called as “Tribunal” in B.L.T. Case No. 829/17
whereby and where under the court has rejected
the case of the petitioner committing the same
mistake as was committed the court of Additional
Collector vide its order dated 03.11.2017 in
Patna High Court CWJC No.20370 of 2018(3) dt.06-01-2026
2/2
Mutation Rev. No. 34/2014-15 who had set-aside
the orders passed commonly on 16.06.2014 in
Mutation Case No. 36/2013-14 and 37/2013-14
and affirm of the order of the Circle Officer dated
16.02.2013 in Mutation Case No. 2113/2012-13
and order dated 28.06.2013 in Mutation Case No.
869/2013-14.
(ii) for issuance of relief/reliefs which
may be deemed fit and proper under the
circumstances of case.”
3. At the outset, it has been accepted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that Title Suit No. 140 of 2014 which
was preferred by the petitioner himself now stand disposed of. He
submits that in that background, the writ petition has become
infructuous.
4. Considering the aforesaid development, that has
been brought to the knowledge of the Court by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, appreciating the said submission, the
writ petition is disposed of as become infructuous.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…