Dismissed

Bishnu Kumar Singh And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Nov 2019WPC/778/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a mutation revision. The Court held that since the underlying proceeding was a non-maintainable second revision, no positive order could be passed in favour of the petitioners, leading to the dismissal of the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and stood dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Bishnu Kumar Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.778 of 2017

¶3

Bishnu Kumar Singh

¶4

Chandra Jyoti Devi

¶5

. … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh.

¶9

Additional Collector, Giridih.

¶10

D.C.L.R., Giridih.

¶11

Circle Officer, Giridih.

¶12

Sakuntala Devi

¶13

Geeta Kumari @ Geeta Kumar

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Nitish Krishna, AC to SC (L&C)-II ----------------------------

¶16

07 / Dated 05^th November, 2019

¶17

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.03.2014 passed in Giridih Mutation Revision No.19 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the application has been dismissed by closing the proceeding by the revisional authority on the ground that the parties have failed to appear.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to convince the Court by referring to the order dated 12.06.2009 by which the authority has posted the case for passing appropriate order on 23.06.2009 but since the order could not have been passed, the proceeding was revived for hearing afresh and due to that reason the petitioners have failed to appear before the authority since they were in the impression that the order would be passed in pursuance to the order dated 12.06.2009.

¶19

He has further tried to convince that although the order dated 07.03.2014 has been challenged after lapse of three years by way of

¶20

present writ petition but it was beyond the control of the petitioners since the wife of the petitioner No.1 was suffering from serious illness.

¶21

Mr. Nitish Krishna, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the proceeding which is the subject matter of Mutation Revision No.19 of 2006 which according to him was by way of second revision and as per the provision of Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 there is no provision of second revision since the provision which has been provided as under Section 17 of the Act, 1973 has been repealed.

¶22

The factual aspect pertaining to the second revision has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶23

This Court after considering the aforesaid submission and taking into consideration the admitted position that the Mutation Revision No.19 of 2006 is by way of second revision which admittedly is not maintainable after repeal of the provision of Section 17 of the Act, 1973, therefore, when the proceeding pertaining to aforesaid Mutation Revision No.19 of 2006 itself is not permissible to be continued, this Court thinks it proper not to pass any positive order in favour of the petitioners.

¶24

In view thereof, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.

¶25

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶26

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶27

Saurabh

Bishnu Kumar Singh And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishnu Kumar Singh And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayal Kumar Ishwar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Sharma And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amiya Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Sumit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahid Raghunath Mahto Inter Mahavidyalaya through Its Secretary Keshav Mahto Kamlesh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Darpa Hari Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary