IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6398 of 2011 ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar, s/o- late Shobha Lal Pandit, r/o- village & P.O.- Harda, P.S.- K.Hat (Maranga), District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Consolidation, Budh Marg, Patna. 3. The Joint Director, Consolidation (Purnea) at Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Purnea. 5. The Consolidation Officer, Purnea. 6. The Circle Officer, Purnea, East, Purnea. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Sachin GP24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 5 20-12-2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State are present. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed after service on the petitioner which is taken on record. The petitioner approached this Court seeking following reliefs as culled out in (i) of paragraph 1. “1(i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to release the entire land of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2 to this petition under Section 26(A) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 & Rules 1958. In the supplementary affidavit, the respondents have Patna High Court CWJC No.6398 of 2011 (5) dt.20-12-2011 2 enclosed the notification bearing S.O. 339 (4) Revenue dated 25.8.2011 issued under the signature of the Officer on Special Duty to the Government in the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms. The said notification has been made under Section 26A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for short “ the Act”). In the light of aforesaid fact brought on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits and, in my view, fairly that the application has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. Needless to observe that the authorities under the Act shall act accordingly. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)