IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13353 of 2007 1. Binod Kumar Srivastava 2. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, both sons of late Chandradeo Prasad,both are resident of Village Panch Patra, P.O. Mukhrore, P.S. Revilganj, Paragana Rah, District Saran, at presently residing at Co- operatuive Colony, Bokaro Steel City District B.S. City(Jharkhand) -- -- Petitioners. Versus. 1. The State of Bihar through its Collector, Saran, Chapra 2. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Saran, Chapra. 3. The Circle Officer, Revilganj, District- Chapra 4. Smt. Kaushalya Devi wife of late Gagandeo Prasad, resident of Village Panch Patra P.O. Mukhrera, P.S. Revilganj, District- Saran 5. The Collector, Saran, Chapra ----------- Respondents. ------------- 2. 27.2.2009 Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the petitioners, and Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Bharti, learned Standing Counsel No.14 for respondent nos. 1 to and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners presses I.A. No. 7626 of 2008, which is in the nature of a substation application, wherein it is stated that respondent no.4 (Kausalya Devi) died on 31.8.2008, leaving behind her heirs mentioned in paragraph 3 of this application. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same. In the view of the matter, let the name of respondent no.4 be expunged and be substituted by her heirs mentioned in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application. I.A. No. 7626 of 2008 is accordingly disposed of. It arises out of mutation proceedings, and is directed against the order dated 30.4.2007 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Collector of the district Saran, Chapra, in Mutation Revision Case No. 4 of 2007 (Chandeshwar Prasad Vrs. Kausalya Devi), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioners has been 2 rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners raises a grievance before this Court that his revision application has already been disposed of by the learned revisional authority after it had remained pending for a period of 30 years. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the subject matter of these proceedings is now being agitated in First Appeal No. 547 of 1984 in this Court. In that view of the matter, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn to pursue the appeal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )