Basanti Mahato Aged About 64 Years ... vs Sumitra Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 4420 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               Civil Review No. 63 of 2019

             1. Basanti Mahato aged about 64 years wife of late Gandhi Mahato,
             resident of Krishnapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikela-
             Kharsawan
          2. Raj Kumar Mahato, aged about 38 years, son of Late Gandhi Mahato,
             resident of Krishnapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikela-
             Kharsawan .... Respondent No. 6 & 7/Petitioner
                                        Versus
             1. Sumitra Devi, aged about 59 years, wife of late Anand Burman @
                 Anand Sao, resident of Panchayat Kendra, P.O. & P.S. Kandra,
                 District Seraikela Kharsawan ...          Petitioner/Opp. Party
             2. State of Jharkhand
             3. Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan Division), P.O. and P.S.
                 Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum
             4. Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawan, P.O. and P.S.
                 Seraikela, District-Seraikela Kharsawan
                                               .... Respondent No. 1,2,3/Opp. Parties
             5. Amit Roy, son of Badrinarain Roy, Director of M/s Puskar Techno
                 Private Limited having office at 48, Phase-I, Industrial Area,
                 Adityapur, District-Seraikela Kharsawan
             6. M/s Puskar Techno Private Limited through its Director Amit Roy,
                 Director having office at 48, Phase-I, Industrial Area, P.O. and P.S.
                 Adityapur, District Seraikela Kharsawan
                                ...Respondents No. 4 & 5/Proforma Opposite parties
                                        ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, A.C. to S.C. Mines-I

---

10/04.11.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 4.4.2019 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 5526 of 2016 whereby and whereunder order of the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan Division) dated 13.01.2016 and that of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan dated 16.09.2016 have been set aside and the Circle Officer has been directed to decide the mutation application of the petitioners within 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been divested of the property involved in the present case by virtue of another sale deed. He submits that present review petition is

infructuous for all practical purposes for the time being and accordingly he does not want to press this review petition as on date.

4. Considering the aforesaid submission, this review petition is dismissed as not pressed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit