Allowed

Sri Haribansh Pandey v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC19 May 2015CWJC/6676/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash an order by the Circle Officer that issued a Basgit Parcha to a respondent without notice. The Court found the proceedings invalid due to lack of notice and sufficient findings on privileged status. The impugned order was set aside, and respondents were permitted to initiate fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is allowed; the impugned order dated 11.09.1996 is set aside; respondents may commence fresh proceedings.

Sri Haribansh Pandey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6676 of 1997

¶3

=========================================================== Sri Haribansh Pandey, son of Late Bechu Pandey, resident of Village- Simri Khaira Patti, P.S.- Simri, District- Buxar. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Buxar 3. Circle Officer, Simri, P.S. Simri, District- Buxar. 4. Smt. Shanichari Devi, daughter of late Ramchij Malah, wife of Sipahi Malah, resident of Village- Dhumra Kepula, P.S. Buxar (T), District- Buxar, now, Village- Simri Khaira Patti, P.S.- Simri, District- Buxar. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shree Kant Pandey, Advocate Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. (GP1) Mr. U. K. Choudhary

¶4

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-05-2015

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶6

The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 11.09.1996 passed by the Circle Officer, Simri in Basgit Parcha Case No. 14 of 1996-97, by which it has been held that Parcha has been issued in favour of respondent no.4 without notice to Raiyat.

¶7

In spite of notice, no one appears on behalf of private respondents, whereas counsel for the State is present.

¶8

The petitioner’s claim that before issuing the order, no notice was issued to him. Furthermore, there is no finding that the person claiming to be a privileged person was not a proprietor or tenure holder and does not hold more than one acre of land.

¶9

In support of his submissions, the petitioner has relied

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.6676 of 1997 dt.19-05-2015

¶11

2 / 2

¶12

upon a Division Bench judgment passed in case of Hira Lal Vishwakarma Vs. Vishwanath Sah & Ors, reported in 1978 BBCJ 623.

¶13

A counter affidavit has been filed by the official respondents, which does not refute the petitioner’s submission that any notice was issued to him or whether there was any finding in accordance with Section 2(1) of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead

¶14

Tenancy Act.

¶15

In the result, this writ application succeeds. The impugned order dated 11.09.1996 passed by the Circle Officer, Simri, Buxar in Basgit Parcha Case No. 14 of 1996-97 is set aside. However, it will be open for the respondents to start a fresh proceeding in accordance with law.

¶16

This writ application is allowed.

¶17

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)

¶18

Uday/-

¶19

Sri Haribansh Pandey v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Haribansh Pandey 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Vidyawati Pathak and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Laldhari Yadav and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Parikcha Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bindeshwari Rai and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ramu Saffi and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Krishna Bihari Labh and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.