Disposed

Shiv Kumar Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Mar 2013CWJC/3222/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that administrative orders regarding genealogy were passed without noticing interested parties, violating natural justice. The petitioner was directed to approach the Sub-Divisional Officer for a rehearing to ensure all family members were heard before a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before Sub-Divisional Officer and file application for rehearing with a copy of this order.

Shiv Kumar Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3222 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== 1. Shiv Kumar Bhagat S/O Late Abhay Kumar Sinha R/O 402, Ashirvad Apartment, Boring Road, P.S. And P.O.- S.K. Puri, Distt.- Patna

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶4

The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Munger, District- Munger 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Munger, District- Munger 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tarapur, P.S.- Tarapur, Distt.- Munger 5. The Circle Officer Tarapur, P.S.- Tarapur, Distt.- Munger 6. Smt. Indu Gupta W/O Sri Devendra Prasad Gupta R/O Village- Rampatti, P.S. And P.O.- Rampatti, Distt.- Madhubani

¶5

Sanjay Kumar Bhagat S/O Late Vijay Kumar Sinha R/O Mohalla- Purani Bazar, Nawadah, P.S. And P.O.- Nawadah, District- Nawadah

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushanta Kumar Das For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal Sc24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 04-03-2013 From the facts appearing in this case, it appears that one after another orders have been passed by the authorities in complete violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Earlier, Circle Officer had passed some orders on 30.4.2005 in respect of genealogy of the family of Indu Gupta showing her as the only daughter of Late Sheonandan Prasad Bhagat and Late Ramrati Devi. Father of the petitioner, who was one of the relations, appears to have filed an application before the Circle Officer later on, who entertained the application and, by order dated 31.7.2006, vide Annexure-6, cancelled his earlier order. When the Circle

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.3222 of 2013 (2) dt.04-03-2013

¶8

2/3

¶9

Officer had entertained the application of Indu Gupta earlier, it appears that no notice was issued to any family members. Subsequently, when he entertained the application of father of the petitioner later on, he did not issue notice to said Indu Gupta and cancelled the report and genealogy issued earlier ex-parte. Against the said order, it appears that Indu Gupta filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was registered as Misc. Case No.22 of 2006-07. The Sub-Divisional Officer also, vide his order contained in Annexure-7, set aside the order of the Circle Officer dated 31.7.2006 without issuing notice to the father of the petitioner, at whose instance, the Circle Officer had passed the said order. Thus, at no occasion the authorities have taken care of issuing notice to any of the interested parties giving them opportunity to be heard.

¶10

In the circumstances, this Court directs the petitioner to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer along with a copy of this order and file an application for re-hearing of the matter. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall verify from the records whether he had issued notice to the father of the petitioner or the petitioner before he passed the said order dated 19.2.2007, annexed as Annexure-7, or not. If it appears to him that all the parties were not heard in the matter, he shall give opportunity to all the family

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.3222 of 2013 (2) dt.04-03-2013

¶12

3/3

¶13

members including Indu Gupta and shall decide the matter afresh, after considering their stand and materials produced by them. If the petitioner appears before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer finds that the parties were not heard earlier, he will be at liberty to pass any interim order as he may think fit and proper till final orders are passed by him.

¶14

Writ application is disposed of.

¶15

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶16

Pradeep/-

Shiv Kumar Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Bhagat 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harendra Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Lazeez Restaurant and Lagan Banquet Hall Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nagendra Kumar Vs The Managing Director Of Bihar State Power holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Jaimula Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramanand Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajbanshi Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.