IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10691 of 2003 ISHWAR DAYAL SINGH son of late Balkhandi Singh, resident of village Makrain, P.S. Dehri, District Rohtas.. ..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Land Reform Commissioner, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, 4. The Director of Consolidation, Bihar,Budh Marg, Patna, … ..Respondents ----------- 5 28.08.2009 Heard Mr. Girija Nand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned AC to Standing Counsel No. I. The petitioner has filed this writ application being aggrieved by notification under section 4A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) declaring cancellation of earlier notification under section 3 of the Act, whereby the consolidation operation had commenced. It has been stated by the petitioner that consequent to the notification initiating the consolidation operation in the concerned village the proceedings had almost concluded and chak khatian etc. were distributed. 2 The concerned parties were put in possession of their respective lands and then suddenly the State has come with a notification under section 4A of the Act announcing cancellation of earlier notification under section 3 of the Act, which, according to the petitioner, was not proper. State has filed a supplementary counter affidavit appending therewith copy of a notification dated 15.03.2004, wherein it has been stated that the earlier notification under section 4A of the Act has been annulled/withdrawn in the area and as such, the earlier notification under section 3 of the Act automatically stand revised. In paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit clear stand has been taken by the respondent- State that there had already been a notification under section 26A of the Act on 30.06.1993 declaring closure of the consolidation scheme on its completion, therefore, the petitioner was not affected even by the earlier notification under section 4A of the Act cancelling the consolidation operation. In view of the aforesaid statement on part of the State that there had already been a notification under 3 section 26A of the Act with regard to the village concerning the petitioner on 30.06.1993 itself and that the earlier notification under section 4A of the Act also stands withdrawn, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner now does not have any other grievance to be redressed. Thus, no further order need be passed in this writ application. This writ application stands disposed of. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)