IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13628 of 2002 ====================================================== Shamima Khatoon & Anr .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp2) Mr. Abul Kalam Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy Mr. Samir Kumar Mr. Satyendra Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 12 06-03-2013 Learned counsel for the petitioners and the State are present. This matter has been listed at the instance of the petitioners for correcting certain typographical mistakes in the order dated 27.09.2012 passed in CWJC No. 13628 of 2002. At page 3 of the said order it has been noted “the descendents of Mohiuddin sold 12 kathas of land in favour of Abu Bakar Sidiqui who got his name mutated vide Jamabandi No. 224. On 28.6.1960, Abu Bakar Siddiqui executed a Deed of Ladavi in favour of his daughter Shamima Khatoon ( petitioner No.1) in the year 1983”. Let it be modified to the effect that “the descendents Patna High Court CWJC No.13628 of 2002 (12) dt.06-03-2013 2/2 of Mohiuddin sold 12 kathas of land on 28.06.1960 in favour of Abu Bakar Sidiqui who got his name mutated vide Jamabandi No. 224”. The said paragraph is further modified to the effect that “a deed of Ladavi in favour of his daughter Shamima Khatoon (petitioner No.1) executed on 24.5.1966”. In the last line of the same paragraph, it has been stated “remaining 12 kathas was transferred in favour of petitioner No.2 by the aforesaid Abu Bakar Siddiqui”. The said line shall be corrected as “remaining 12 kathas was transferred in favour of petitioner No.2 on 26.3.1993 by the Ekbal Ahmad Sidique”. At the same page in para 2 at 6th line in place of “3.11.1960” it shall be read as “3.11.1916”. In para 2 at page 5 it has been noted “while assailing the order, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended”. Let it be corrected as “while assailing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended”. It is further modified in the 7th line from top at page 8 in place of “Case No. 92 of 1993” it shall be read as “ Case No. 31 of 1992-93”. The order dated 27.9.12 is clarified/modified to that extent only. Shyam/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)