IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6197 of 1989 1. Kari Mahto son of late Awadh Mahto, R/o vill. Tetihare Mahuli @ Belaucha Tola- Bela P.S. Madhepur, Dist. Madhubani. ---Petitioner. Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3 The Additional Collector, Madhubani. 4 The DCLR, Jhanjharpur, Dist- Madhubani. 5 Indra Nand Jha @ Shobha Nand Jha son of late Rajeshwar Jha R/o vill. Tetihare Mahuli @ Belaucha, Tole-Bela P.S. Madhepur, Dist. Madhubani. --Respondents. ---------------------------------- 15. 15.12.2011 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Same is the case with the respondents. Learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.6 is present. This case was lodged in this Court on 11.07.1989. By order dated 26.08.1993, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, it appears the same was restored. By order dated 05.04.1999 it was admitted to hearing. The matter was thereafter taken up on 23.06.1999 when nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Again the matter was taken up on 27.07.2010, when this Court noticed that petitioner no.1, namely Rameshwar Mahto and respondent no.5, namely, Mathura Nand Jha of the present writ petition died inasmuch as learned counsel through which the application has been filed was also dead. The office was directed to issue notice to the surviving petitioner no.2 enabling him to pursue the matter through another counsel. Office report indicates that notices were issued by both modes. The registered cover returned undelivered with a note that there was no one in the village known as Kari Mahto. In the meanwhile, the matter was again taken up on 2 24.11.2011, when it was adjourned awaiting service report. Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 28.04.1989 passed by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna (respondent no.2) in Board case no. 486 of 1985 whereby the order dated 06.09.1985 passed by the appellate authority in appeal case no. 315 of 1983-84/189 of 1984-85 was affirmed. The appellate authority had, in turn, affirmed the order passed by the respondent –DCLR in Land Ceiling Case no. 5 of 1980-81. I have perused the order(s) impugned in the writ petition. In my view, the authorities have not committed any jurisdictional and/or patent illegality meriting any interference. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)