Disposed

Mahendra Jha v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC7 Aug 2012L.P.A/550/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the disposal of two interlocutory applications. The appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by a non-party intervener was accepted. The writ petition challenging a notice was dismissed with a modification to maintain status quo regarding a house constructed by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory applications disposed; Writ petition dismissed; Direction to maintain status quo regarding construction on disputed land.

Mahendra Jha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No. 550 of 2012 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3624 of 2009 With Interlocutory Application No. 2741 of 2012 And Interlocutory Application No. 3218 of 2012 In

¶3

Letters Patent Appeal No. 550 of 2012.

¶4

====================================================== Mahendra Jha, S/o Late Rajdeo Jha, R/o Village - Dhankaul, P.S.- Bajpatti, Distt.- Sitamarhi

¶5

.... .... (Proposed intervenor respondent) Appellant Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Collector, Sitamarhi

¶8

The Sub Divisional Officer, Pupri, Sitamarhi

¶9

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Pupri, Distt.- Sitamarhi

¶10

The Circle Officer, Bajpatti Circle, Distt.-Sitamarhi ….... (Respondents)

¶11

……………… Respondent 1st set 6. Naresh Kumar Pandit, S/o Satyadeo Pandit, R/o Village - Dhankol, P.S. - Bajpatti, Distt.- Sitamarhi …………..…. (Petitioner) / Respondent 2^nd Set. .... .... Respondents

¶12

====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellants: Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh and Mr. Rajan, Advocates. For the State: Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, AC to GA 3. For the Respondent No. 6: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan-I, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶15

4 07-08-2012 Having taken time for today, learned advocate Mr.

¶16

Patna High Court LPA No.550 of 2012 (4) dt.07-08-2012

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh is not present.

¶19

Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 17^th January 2012 made by the learned single Judge insofar as CWJC No. 3624 of 2009 is allowed, the intervenor has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

¶20

Re. Interlocutory Application No. 3218 of 2012.

¶21

Although according to the appellant, it was his land which was adversely affected by the settlement made in favour of the writ petitioner; the appellant was not impleaded in the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 6; the appellant has, therefore, filed this application for leave to appeal.

¶22

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Application is allowed. The appellant is allowed to prefer Appeal against the order dated 17^th January 2012 made on CWJC No. 3624 of 2009.

¶23

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

¶24

Re. Interlocutory Application No. 2741 of 2012. The delay of 2 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

¶25

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

¶26

Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 550 of 2012.

¶27

Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 17^th January 2012 made by the learned single Judge insofar as CWJC No. 3624 of 2009 is allowed, the appellant, a non-party, has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

¶28

The respondent no. 6 - the writ petitioner filed above CWJC No. 3624 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the notice dated 20^th September 2007 issued by the Circle Officer, Bajpatti, District – Sitamarhi calling upon the writ

¶29

Patna High Court LPA No.550 of 2012 (4) dt.07-08-2012

¶30

3 / 4

¶31

petitioner as to why the settlement made under order dated 4^th February 2009 in respect of the land Khata No. 366, Khesra Nos. 1123 & 497 be not cancelled.

¶32

The learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Collector, Sitamarhi to pass appropriate and reasoned order in accordance with law after determining the title and settlement in favour of the petitioner. Insofar as the claim of the writ petitioner is concerned, the learned single Judge has directed the status quo to be maintained in respect of the house constructed by the writ petitioner on the disputed land, if any.

¶33

Learned advocate Mr. Prabhat Ranjan has appeared for the writ petitioner - the respondent no. 6. He has submitted that the earlier decision of this Court in CWJC No. 4539 of 2004 was in respect of the land Plot No. 1123 alone and not in respect of the land Plot No. 497. Nevertheless, the authority below has reopened the case in respect of both the plots of land, namely, Plot No. 1123 and Plot No. 497.

¶34

It appears that the challenge in CWJC No. 4539 of 2004 was against the order dated 16^th February 2004 made by the Circle Officer, Bajapatti whereby the settlement of land Khata no. 366, Plot no. 1123 admeasuring 40 decimals made in Settlement Case no. 5/1999-2000 was cancelled.

¶35

Be that as it may, the process of adjudication by the executive need not be interfered at the stage of notice. The very defence can be raised before the authority below also.

¶36

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the authority below to decide the impugned notice

¶37

Patna High Court LPA No.550 of 2012 (4) dt.07-08-2012

¶38

4 / 4

¶39

after hearing the parties and by speaking order. Only modification that needs to be made is in respect of the construction made by the writ petitioner on the disputed land.

¶40

It is directed that the parties, including the writ petitioner, will maintain status quo in respect of the house constructed by the writ petitioner until the authority below decides and takes decision pursuant to the impugned notice dated 24^th July 2007.

¶41

Subject to the above modification, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶42

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶43

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶44

NAFR

¶45

Dilip.

Mahendra Jha v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Jha v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Smt.Priyadarshika Vanita Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Arjati Trading Pvt.ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Krishnadeo Singh @ Krishan Deo Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Ekbal Bhagat Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The State of Bihar and Anr. Vs Saket Suman and Ors.

Sushil Chandra Srivastava Vs the Presiding Officer,Industri