Allowed

Satish Panjiyar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 Feb 2014L.P.A/47/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Letters Patent Appeal challenged an order disposing of a writ petition without notice. The High Court granted audience, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after recording the appellant's arguments.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.10.2013 set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the appellant.

Satish Panjiyar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Partition | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.47 of 2014 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17948 of 2008

¶3

====================================================== Satish Panjiyar, son of Late Raghunath Panjiyar, resident of MohallaBakarganj, P.O. + P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga

¶4

.... .... Respondent no.4 - Appellant. Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar

¶6

The Collector, Darbhanga

¶7

The Circle Officer, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 3)

¶8

Pankaj Kumar Panjiyar, son of Ram Narayan Panjiyar, resident of Mohalla- Bakarganj, P.O. + P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga .... .... Respondents.

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lalit Narayan Jha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kundan Bhadur Singh, Advocate.

¶11

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI and

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH)

¶13

4 06-02-2014 The instant appeal under Letters Patent of Patna High Court has been preferred against order, dated 30.10.2013, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17948 of 2008. The appellant, who is respondent no.4 in writ application, has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to him.

¶14

The learned Single Judge by the order, under challenge, has pointed out that the State, in counter affidavit, has admitted that Khesara No.28417 and Khesra No.28427 was

¶15

Patna High Court LPA No.47 of 2014 (4) dt. 06 -02-2014

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

recorded as “Parti Kadim” in the name of ex-landlord, which after vesting came to be of State of Bihar. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ application with a direction to the Circle Officer, Darbhanga, to enquire into the application of the writ petitioner regarding allegation of encroachment by the appellant over a public land being Aam Rasta. The learned Single Judge further directed the Circle Officer to ensure that the proceedings for removal of encroachment on public land are disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order passed in the writ petition.

¶18

The appellant contends that though the said plot of land is alleged to have been encroached upon by the appellant, the said land, in fact, belongs to the appellant and that the respondents, under the garb of order of this Court, are bent upon evicting the appellant from the said land.

¶19

As the appellant contends that the land, in question, is not a public land and it is agreed before us that no notice was issued to him before disposing of the writ petition, the order, dated 30.10.2013, passed in C.W.J.C. No.17948 of 2008, is hereby set aside and the matter is directed to be listed, again, before the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration after hearing the appellant, who was respondent No.4 in the writ application, and all

¶20

Patna High Court LPA No.47 of 2014 (4) dt. 06 -02-2014

¶21

3 / 3

¶22

other parties on record.

¶23

In view of the fact that the appellant-respondent No.4 has knowledge, now, about the writ petition, he shall appear, in the writ petition, either in person or through his counsel, when the writ petition is listed.

¶24

Let the writ petition be listed on 18.02.2014. The appeal is, thus, allowed to the extent mentioned

¶25

above.

¶26

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)

¶27

I agree I. A. Ansari, J.:

¶28

(I. A. Ansari, J.)

¶29

Uday/NAFR

Satish Panjiyar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Panjiyar 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

Uday Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Indrajeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Harendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Bishwnath Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar

Radheshyam Choudhary and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Saroj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.