IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9812 of 2002 1. SURJESH PRASAD VARMA,S/oLate Suresh Prasad Verma, 2. Smt. Shanti Devi, W/o Late Suresh Prash Prasad Verma, 3. Sarbesh Prasad Varma, S/o Late Suresh Prasad Verma, and 4. Rajesh Prasad Varma, S/o Late Suresh Prasad Verma, all residents of Village – Shikarpur, P.S. Shikarpur, Distt. – West Champaran ……………………………………..Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, 3. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah…Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Satyavrat Varma, Advocate. For the Respondents:- Mr. Ajay, S.C. 3 (Ceiling) and Mr. Kirshna Chandra, AC to SC-3 ©. ------------ 6. 30.06.2009. I.A. No. 5458 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner for expunging the name of Petitioner No. 1, Surjesh Prasad Varma, who died on 16.06.2005 and for substituting in his place his legal representative fully described in paragraph-2 of the aforesaid application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. This interlocutory application is allowed. Let the name of deceased Petitioner No. 1, Surjesh Prasad Varma be expunged from the array of petitioners and in his place the names of his legal representatives, as described in paragraph-2 of the interlocutory application, 2 be substituted. All the legal representatives are represented by learned counsel, Mr. Satyabrat Varma, who has already filed Vakalatnama on their behalf. Now I proceed to dispose of the writ petition. Writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2002, as contained in Annexure-5, passed by the Respondent no. 2 whereby the Collector concerned was directed to notice all the concerned parties and hear them on the specific point of holding local enquiry into the factum of possession of lands concerned and then to pass order in accordance with law. Upon joint submissions on behalf of the petitioner as well as the State, this Court deems it proper to direct the Collector concerned to comply the order passed by the revisional authority, as contained in Annexure-5. However, the surplus land, if any, should not be distributed by the authorities till a final order is passed by the Collector in the matter. It is made clear that this consensus order has been passed without going into the merit of the case. 3 With the aforesaid observations, this writ application stands disposed of. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )