08 11-Jan-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.522 of 2009 KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE GIRISH NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, R/O VIJAYA BHAWAN OF FRAZER ROAD, P.S.KOTWALI, PATNA ………………….....RESPONDENT NO.4- APPELLANT. Versus 1. SHRI PARIMAL KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI BIMALENDRA PRASAD SINHA, R/O VIJAYA BHAWAN OF FRAZER ROAD, P.S.KOTWALI, PATNA, DISTRICT- PATNA…WRIT PETITIONER…..RESPONDENT. 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA, BIHAR 4. THE TOWN COMMISSIONER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA, BIHAR. 5. M/S APARAJITA DEVELOPER PVT LTD. THRU ITS DIRECTOR RAVI SHANKAR SINGH, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT JAGAT NARAYAN ROAD, P.S.KADAMKUAN, PATNA. 6. SHRI NANHE KUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S APARAJITA DEVELOPER PVT. LTD. R/O 2/B APARAJITA APARTMENT, PHASE-2 KHAJPURA, PATNA…………..…RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- Heard the parties. On a careful reading of the order under appeal dated 05.03.2009 whereby writ petition preferred by respondent, Sri Parimal Kumar Singh bearing CWJC No.3026 of 2009 was disposed of, it is clear that the said order was passed without a notice to the appellants because the order was intended to be innocuous and only as a direction to the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation to take a final decision on an application of the writ petitioner dated 15.01.2009 after 2 hearing the petitioner and the respondents within six months. No doubt, an interim order for making no construction by any person over the land in question was also passed only for a period of six months, but now that period is over and admittedly the matter has been decided by the Municipal Commissioner of the Patna Municipal Corporation in favour of the appellant. In substance, the appeal has now become infructuous because the effect of the order passed by the writ Court is not adverse to the appellant and direction has already been complied with by the concerned authority. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the ex-parte order under appeal records certain facts on the basis of submissions which are incorrect and such error of facts on record particularly in paragraph-3 at page 1 which continues to page 2 also, needs to be corrected. The relevant part of the order to which objection has been taken runs as follows:- “it has been submitted that though the land in question never belonged to the persons seeking approval of the plan including the respondents 4 to 6 but the PRDA had sanctioned plan………….” “ the grievance of the petitioner therefore is that even when this dispute now stands settled by the judgment and decree of the Civil Courts 3 holding the land to be belonging exclusively to the petitioner……..” The mere observation that the aforesaid facts or submissions in the impugned order shall not prejudice the case of the appellant anywhere even in future is in our view sufficient to take care of the apprehensions expressed by the appellant. However, things have been made easier on account of writ petitioner having himself filed Civil Review No.94 of 2009 wherein the aforesaid errors have been pointed out in paragraph-12 and 13 particularly and a prayer has been made to delete those facts. Even though the review application is pending, we clarify that in view of the stand of the writ petitioner himself that the aforesaid observations are errors of records, they shall be of no value. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)