High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Raghunandan Yadav &Amp; Ors vs S.D.O.Khagaria &Amp; Ors on 26 August, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Raghunandan Yadav &Amp; Ors vs S.D.O.Khagaria &Amp; Ors on 26 August, 2010
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CWJC No.7724 of 1993.
                    ========================================================
                     1. Raghunandan Yadav, son of Late Panchu Yadav,
                     2. Nand Kishore Yadav, son of Raghunandan Yadav,
                     3. Bahor Yadav, son of Raghunandan Yadav, all are residents of
                        Village Aho Ghat, P.S. Sahabpur Kamal, P.O. Bishunpur, Dist.
                        Begusarai .................... .............................. Petitioners
                                                 Versus
                     1. The Sub Divisional Officer, Khagaria
                     2. The Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Khagaria, District Khagaria,
                     3. Luxman Singh, Son of late Banarsi Singh, R/o Village - Madhua,
                        P.S. Khagaria, Distt. Khagaria,
                     4. Ganesh Yadav, son of Bira Yadav, resident of Village Aho Ghat,
                        P.S.         Sahebpur       Kamal,       Distt.       Begusarai
                        .............................................................. Respondents.
                     ================================================
                     Appearance:
                     For the petitioners:         None.
                     For the respondents:         None.
                     ===============================================
                     CORAM:     HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                            AND
                                HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN

                    ORAL ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

7. 26.08.2010. Until now, 17 years after the date of the
petition, the respondents 3 & 4 are yet unserved. Several
opportunities have been given to the writ petitioners to
ensure that the respondents 3 & 4 are served. No action
has been taken. Today, when called out, learned Advocate
is not present.

2

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-
prosecution. Interim stay stands vacated.

( R. M. Doshit, CJ)

( Jyoti Saran, J)
Dilip