IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2784 of 2007 SITA DEVI, wife of Shri Jagarnath Parihar, R/o Village – Ekauna, P.O. – Kuretha, P.S. Mansahi, Distt. – Katihar ………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, 3. The Collector, Katihar, 4. Shri Pran Mohan Thakur, Collector, Katihar, 5. The Circle Officer, Mansahi, P.S. Mansahi, Distt. Katihar, 6. Shri Arvind Mandal, Circle Officer, Mansahi, P.S. Mansahi, Distt. Katihar, and 7. Gopal Parihar, S/o Dukhu Parihar, R/o Village – Ekauna, P.O. Kuretha, P.S. Mansahi, Distt. Katihar …………. Respondents. ----------- 9. 21.07.2009. Heard Mr. R.K. Sinha 2, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned A.C. to G.A. IV appearing for the State. No body appears on behalf of Respondent No. 7. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2005 passed by the Circle Officer, Mansahi in Case No. 58/04-05, as contained in Annexure-5 to this application, whereby amended Basgit Purcha was issued in favour of Respondent No. 7 for the lands bearing to Khata no. 185, Plot No. 164 measuring an area of 13.75 decimals of land of Village Akauna, which included 7 decimals of land of the petitioner. During the pendency of this writ application 2 and after several adjournments, a counter affidavit was filed stating that the lands of the petitioner has been wrongly included in the modified homestead purcha and it was also accepted that the petitioner was dispossessed from the aforesaid land. State was directed to file a supplementary counter affidavit with regard to restoration of possession of the petitioner. Counter affidavit has now been filed that the possession of 2.75 decimals of land which was found in possession of the Respondent No. 7 due to the aforesaid issuance of purcha in his favour has been restored back to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner now does not have any grievance except that due to erroneous orders passed by the authorities concerned, the poor lady has faced harassment. In view of the aforesaid I direct the Respondent No. 6 to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) only by way of costs to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )