The Court observed that a judgment was already passed in favor of private respondents while noting the petitioner's pending appeal. The Court held that no interference with the orders was required, though the appeal's result would be binding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12907 of 2006
====================================================== Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, son of Late Sriman Narain Pandey, resident of Mohalla- and P.O. Malkauli Pathakauli, P.S. Bagaha, District- West Champaran
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 3. The Addl. Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms , Bagaha 5. The Circle Officer, Bagaha 6. Jai Prakash Singh, son of Late Sri Kishun Singh 7. Manoj Kumar Singh, son of Late Sri Kishun Singh 8. Most. Sarswati Devi, wife of Late Sri Kishun Singh, Respondents nos. 6 to 8 residents of Village- Vari Dori, Awsani, P.O. Mangalpur, P.S. Laukaria, District- West Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc8) Mr. Kumar Sheshank Shekhar Mr. Ajay Dubey Mr. Zainul Abedin
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 22.03.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Case no.52
Patna High Court CWJC No.12907 of 2006 (8) dt.18-04-2013
2 / 3
(Jamabandi)/1999-2000 as well as order dated 06.09.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah in Revision No.571/1995-96 and also for quashing of order dated 26.02.1999 passed by the D.C.L.R., whereby Jamabandi was created in the name of the private Respondents.
Initially, on 30.04.2008 on the plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Addl. Collector was not having any jurisdiction to decide the case under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “1973 Act”), notice was directed to be issued to Respondent nos. 6 to 8 by this Court.
In this case private Respondents have already appeared and filed a detailed counter affidavit, which has been replied by the petitioner by filing reply on 10.04.2013. It was pleaded by learned counsel for the private Respondents that since in the present case , proceeding was initiated prior to implementation of 1973 Act, the plea of lack of jurisdiction raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was not having any connection or relevance . It was further submitted that even in the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that for the same dispute, a Title Suit No.121 of 1992 was pending in the court of the learned Munsif, Bagaha. Through the counter affidavit, the private Respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.12907 of 2006 (8) dt.18-04-2013
3 / 3
have brought on record the Judgment and Decree passed in favour of Respondents and, as such, it was argued that the petitioner has got no merit in the case and is fit to be rejected.
Sri Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that against the order passed by learned Munsif, Bagaha, the petitioner has filed an appeal, which has been admitted by the lower appellate court.
In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the Judgment and Decree has already been passed in favour of private Respondents by the first court, the Court is of the opinion that there is no requirement for interference with either of the orders. However, it goes without saying that the result of the appeal, which has been preferred by the petitioner, will have got binding affect on both the parties.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kumar, J)
NKS/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is required with administrative orders creating Jamabandi in respondent names.
Whether the petitioners appeal against the Munsif's judgment binds the parties in writ jurisdiction.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of given the existence of a binding judgment in favor of respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey
The State of Bihar
The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
The Addl. Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah
The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bagaha
The Circle Officer, Bagaha
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
