IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7483 of 2008 1. Saligram Mehta, Son of Late Baijnath Prasad, resident of Village- Shikhar, P.S. Muffasil, Town and District- Gaya. 2. Ram Nath Mehta, Son of Late Baijnath Prasad, Resident of Village- Shikhar, P.S. Muffasil, Town and District- Gaya. .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate Gaya. 2. District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. Deputy Collector Land Reforms Sadar, Gaya. 4. Circle Officer, Manpur, Gaya. 5. Sri Radhey Kant Mehta, Son of Late Poon Mehta, Resident of Mauza Shikhar, P.S. Mufassil, District-Gaya. 6. Kapildeo Mehta, Son of Late Baijnath Prasad, Resident of Village- Shikhar, P.S. Muffasil, Town and District-Gaya. ...... Respondents. ----------- Re: I.A. No.7213 of 2008: & I.A. No.7217 of 2008: 04- 18.12.2008 Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for the petitioners, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned junior counsel to Additional Advocate General No.1 for respondent nos.1 to 4, Ms. Soni Shrivastava for respondent no.5, Mr. Maheshwar Prasad for respondent no.6, as well as Mr. Raghav Prasad and Rakesh Kumar Singh for different intervenor- respondents. 2. Mr. Raghav Prasad, learned counsel presses I.A. No.7213 of 2008 and I.A. No.7217 of 2008, wherein it is stated that the applicants 2 of these two interlocutory applications may be permitted to be impleaded as party-respondents because of their interest in the subject-matter of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection to the same. In that view of the matter, the applicants of these two interlocutory applications are permitted to be impleaded as party respondents. I.A. No.7213 of 2008, and I.A. No.7217 of 2008, are accordingly disposed of. Re: I.A. No.6898 of 2008: 3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel presses I.A. No.6898 of 2008, wherein it is stated that the applicant of this interlocutory application may be permitted to be impleaded as party-respondent because of his interest in the subject-matter of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection to the same. In that view of the matter, the applicant of this interlocutory application is permitted to be impleaded as party respondent. I.A. No.6898 of 2008 is accordingly disposed of. 4. Learned counsel for the parties submit in one voice that the subject-matter of this writ petition as well as the properties 3 beyond that belonging to the parties have been settled out side Court. It is further stated that the terms of the compromise are indicated in the counter affidavit of respondent no.5 as well as respondent no.6. In that view of the matter, as jointly prayed, the impugned orders (Annexures-1 and 2) indicated hereinbelow are hereby set aside: (i) Order dated 20.3.2007 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Circle Officer, Manpur, Gaya, in Miscellaneous Case No.3 of 2006-07 (Radhe Kant Mehta Vs. Kapildeo Mehta). (ii) Order dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure-2), passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar Gaya, in Case No.3 of 2006-07 (Radhe Kant Mehta Vs. Kapildeo Mehta). As prayed, this writ petition is disposed of in view of the terms of compromise indicated in the counter affidavit of respondent no.5 as well as respondent no.6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/