Rameshwar Thakur And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for restraining the respondent from disbursing the amount in favour of respondent nos.7 to 12 of the acquired land for widening of National Highway till the decision of Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 and Misc. Case No.01 of 2013.

It is admitted case of the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 and Misc. Case No.01 of 2013 have been disposed of. Against the judgment passed therein petitioners have filed Civil Appeal No.11 of 2019 and therefore, the petitioners have filed interlocutory application for altering the prayer to the effect to restrain the respondents not to disburse the amount of compensation till the pendency of Civil Appeal No.11 of 2019.

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondent 7 to 11 has submitted that original prayer made in the writ petition since pertains to passing of restrainment order in disbursing the amount of compensation in favour of respondent no.7 to 11 during pendency of the Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 and since Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 has also been disposed of while answering the issue against the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition may be rendered to be infructuous.

His further submission is that in addition any prayer as has been sought for by way of interlocutory application for passing a restrainment in disbursing the amount during pendency of Civil Appeal No.11 of 2019 is totally a fresh cause of action, therefore, it cannot be incorporated in the writ petition since the original prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous after disposal of Partition Suit No.76 of 2003.

This Court after considering the submission advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the prayer made in the writ petition which pertains to restraining the respondent in disbursing the amount of compensation till the decision of Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 which has been decided against the petitioner and therefore, the writ petitioner will be said to lost its force.

Further, if the prayer which has been sought to be amended by making addition in the original writ petition, if it would be allowed it will amount to allowing the prayer in a writ petition which has lost its force.

The question of amendment of a petition could arise only if the original prayer made in the original writ petition survives and the moment the prayer made in the original writ petition has lost its force there cannot be addition of prayer.

Upon this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach before the appellate court for seeking relief.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

In consequence, I.A. No.4036 of 2019 also stands disposed of.