Allowed

Bachaspati Narayan Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC28 Mar 2014CWJC/157/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner challenging an order dated 10.10.2012 of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, in Land Dispute Appeal No.47/2012. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of being time-barred despite a condonation application on record. The High Court held that the appellate authority failed to consider the condonation application and that its order was cr

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.10.2012 in Land Dispute Appeal No.47/2012 passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division is quashed. The appeal is restored for disposal on merits with status quo maintained.

Bachaspati Narayan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.157 of 2013

¶2

	====================================================== Bachaspati Narayan Singh S/O Late Shambhu Narayan Singh Resident Of Mohalla Bengali Tola, Town P.S. And District Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar At Patna. 2. The Commissioner Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Samastipur. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), Samastipur. 5. The Circle Officer, Samastipur. 6. Shiv Kumar Jha S/O Late Kameshwar Jha Resident Of Mohalla Bengali Tola, Town, P.S. And District Samastipur. 7. Dwijendra Narayan Singh S/O Late Shambhu Narayan Singh Resident Of Mohalla Bengali Tola, Town, P.S. And District Samastipur.
	.... .... Respondent/s ======================================================
	Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra For the State Mr. Shakib Ayaz A.C. to G.A.9 For the private respondent Mr. Kaushal Kumar Mr. Amish Kumar ======================================================
	CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER
5 28	-03-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent
	no.6.
	The petitioner as well as respondent no.6 claim title and
	possession over the subject land detailed in annexure-3 series
	from the same person/vendor. Document(s) of title however,
	have not been enclosed. The petitioner is aggrieved by order
	dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga
	Division (respondent no.2) in Land Dispute Appeal No.47/2012

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.157 of 2013 (6) dt.28-03-2014

¶4

2 / 5

¶5

(Annexure-6).

¶6

Relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioner after claiming purchase of the land fought litigation with respondent no.6 herein in survey proceedings which was decided in favour of the petitioner in the year 1997. After coming into force of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (for short „the Act‟) respondent no.6 again raised similar/identical issue of recovery of possession of part of the subject land on the basis of the document of title giving rise to Land Dispute Case No. 80/2011 on the file of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms . On notice, the petitioner appeared and filed his response/reply. In the meanwhile, the report of the Amin respecting the subject land was also called for. The petitioner objected to the maintainability of the application on the ground that earlier to this a proceeding of similar nature was fought between the parties which was decided in the year 1997 by the Survey Authority in his favour. It was further stated that the title of the land cannot be decided in the said proceeding. The respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms by an order dated 14.12.2011 passed in the aforesaid case being Land Dispute Case No.80/11 (part of annexure-3) allowed the prayer made by respondent no.6. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner giving rise to Land Dispute

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.157 of 2013 (6) dt.28-03-2014

¶8

3 / 5

¶9

Appeal No. 47/12. Along with appeal an application seeking condonation of delay was filed on the ground, inter alia, that the hearing before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms was concluded on 09.12.2011 and the order was reserved without fixing any date for pronouncement thereof. On 15.01.2011, the petitioner came to know that the said case was disposed of by the respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms by an order dated 14.12.2011. Immediately thereafter on 18.01.2012 he applied for certified copy of the said order dated 14.12.2011 which was furnished to the petitioner on 24.01.2012 and within 30 days thereof the appeal was preferred seeking condonation of delay. The appellate authority, prima facie, being satisfied with the condonation application called for lower court records. After receipt thereof the appeal was dismissed on 10.10.2012 by the following order:-

¶10

“Heard the applicant. Appeal is time barred. Dismissed.”

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate authority failed to consider that the condonation application was already on record and provision of the Act itself provides for enlargement of time by allowing such application. This court would notice relevant part of section 14 of the Act

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.157 of 2013 (6) dt.28-03-2014

¶13

4 / 5

¶14

which reads thus:-

¶15

“14. Appeal before the Commissioner-(1 ) Any party aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority may file an appeal before the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the order has been passed, within a period of thirty days from the date of the order.

¶16

Provided that the Commissioner may receive and dispose off the appeal beyond the period of thirty day by extending it by another thirty days if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within thirty days…”

¶17

The facts stated before this Court appears to be adequate for allowing the condonation application which was filed before the appellate authority. Secondly, the appellate authority, being the final court of fact, needs to consider the case of the parties and record finding on the question of facts and law raised therein by the parties. The order passed by the appellate authority, in my view, is cryptic/non speaking and does not sub-serve the cause of justice.

¶18

Having heard the parties this Court is satisfied that the ends of justice shall be met if the application is disposed of by the following order

¶19

The order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.157 of 2013 (6) dt.28-03-2014

¶21

5 / 5

¶22

Commissioner, Darbhanga Division in Land Dispute Appeal No.47/2012 (Annexure-6) is quashed. The Land Dispute Appeal N0.47/2012 is restored on the file of respondent no.2. Considering the facts of the case this Court would further direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merit and dispose of the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. For expeditious disposal of the matter this Court would direct the petitioner as well as respondent no.6 to appear before the appellate authority along with a copy of the present order within three weeks. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner has some residential structure(s) on the subject land/plot this Court directs that status quo, as obtaining today, shall be maintained until the date the matter is first considered by the appellate authority in the light of the present order.

¶23

Let it be recorded that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the appeal which has been restored on the file of the appellate authority/Commissioner for disposal in accordance with law.

¶24

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶25

HR/-

Bachaspati Narayan Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachaspati Narayan Singh 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

Ram Janam Sharma Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Prem Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bhola Thakur Vs Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Kusum Lal Kamat and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.