The Patna High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the setting aside of orders by the director of consolidation. The lone judge held that the impugned orders were well-discussed and not ex parte.
The impugned order passed by the Director of Consolidation is set aside and this application is allowed.
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.1950 of 1995
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Respondents
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. A.K.MALLICK For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to G.P. 10.
Mr. Uday Bhanu Roy, Advocate
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-04-2015
Out of four petitioners, petitioner no.1, namely, Ramanand Mandal, has died and substituted by order dated 28.02.1996.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1950 of 1995 dt.16-04-2015
2 / 2
teeth of Sub-Clause 2 (d), (e) and (f) of Section 11 of the Act.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)
Uday/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Director of Consolidation erred in setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation as ex parte without considering relevant facts.
Shyama Devi
Suresh Kumar Mandal
Sanjay Kumar Mandal
Ajay Kumar
Sukaldeo Mandal
Bhupal Deo Manda
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
