The High Court dismissed both writ petitions as incompetent because they were filed by petitioners who had failed to comply with a peremptory order dated 19.2.1998.
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5563 of 1996 (3) dt.23-04-2015
1
| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5563 of 1996 ====================================================== |
|
|---|---|
Kedar Tiwari & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== |
|
| with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5565 of 1996 ====================================================== Kedar Tiwari & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== |
|
Appearance : (In CWJC No.5563 of 1996 & 5565 of 1996) For the Petitioner/s None |
|
| For the Respondent/s : Ms. Kumari Amrita, G.P.10 Mr. Mirtunjay Kumar, G.P.10 ====================================================== |
|
| CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER |
|
| 3 | 23-04-2015 Both the writ applications have been filed for quashing the |
| order dated 26.12.1995 passed by the Additional Member Board | |
| of Revenue in Case No.197 of 1993 and Case No.198 of 1993 | |
| whereby he has upheld the order of Additional Collector, | |
| Muzaffarpur allowing Ceiling Appeal No.6 of 1985-86/16 of | |
| 1990-91 and Ceiling Appeal No.7 of 1985/15 of 1991 who had | |
| set aside the order of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, | |
| Muzaffarpur passed in Ceiling Case No. 37 of 1984 dated | |
| 23.5.1985 and Ceiling Case No.38 of 1984 dated 23.5.1985. |
Patna High Court CWJC No.5563 of 1996 (3) dt.23-04-2015
2
Both the writ applications have already been dismissed
against the contesting respondents for non-compliance of per emptory order dated 19.2.1998.
In this view of the matter, these writ applications are dismissed as incompetent.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)
KHAN/-
U
Kedar Tiwari & Ors
State of Bihar & Ors
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
