Dismissed

Punam Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Aug 2015CWJC/8794/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the District Magistrate's No Objection Certificate for the respondent to establish a Kisan Seva Kendra. The Court held the application misconceived, finding no patent illegality as the land parcel was the subject of a pending partition suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed as it was found to be misconceived.

Punam Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8794 of 2015

¶3

====================================================== Punam Rai Wife of Shri Pravash Kumar Rai Resident of Paltuhatta, P.S. Jamo Bazar, Distt. - Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary 2. The District Magistrate, Siwan 3. The Sub - Divisional officer, Siwan 4. The Circle officer, Barhariya, Siwan 5. Ravi Shankar Shahi Son of Late Lalan Prasad Shahi Resident of village - Paterha, Post Paterhi, Police Station - Maharajganj, Distt. - Siwan 6. The Senior Divisional Ratail Sales Manager, India Oil Corporation Ltd. Marketing Division, Krishna Complex, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhuri Lata For the State : Mr. P.N. Shahi- AAG-10 Mr. Ravindra Kumar, A.C. to AAG 10 For the IOC Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr. Amlesh Kr. Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶4

4 04-08-2015 Heard Mrs. Madhuri Lata in support of the application, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the respondent-IOC and counsel for the State.

¶5

The petitioner is an agnate of respondent no.5 who has been selected by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation (for short ‘the IOC’) for establishment of Kisan Seva Kendra (for short ‘KSK’) for a location as per the advertisement published by the respondent IOC. One of the eligibilities required for selection of

¶6

the candidate for establishment of KSK is availability of land at

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.8794 of 2015 (4) dt.04-08-2015

¶8

2/3

¶9

the advertised location.

¶10

The counsel for the IOC has produced a copy of the order passed in CWJC No. 17260 of 2014 (Poonam Rai @ Poonam Devi vs. The Union of India & Ors.) in order to contend that the selection of respondent no.5 for establishment of KSK was challenged unsuccessfully by the petitioner. The petitioner is not an applicant for allotment of KSK.

¶11

The present writ application has thereafter been filed challenging the communication dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure-1) by which no objection certificate has been granted by the District Magistrate in favour of respondent no.5 to establish KSK on the land appertaining to khata no.111, plot no.911 within Mauza Puraina in the district of Siwan.

¶12

It has been vehemently argued by the petitioner that the District Magistrate in the said communication has noted that the subject land is dispute free when admittedly a Title (Partition) Suit No. 98/12 is pending consideration in the court between the parties.

¶13

After hearing both sides, in my view, the writ application questioning the aforesaid communication appears to be misconceived. The communication has been addressed to the respondent-IOC in the light of the guidelines which govern the

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.8794 of 2015 (4) dt.04-08-2015

¶15

3/3

¶16

grant of KSK to an applicant. The fact that a title (partition) suit is pending consideration between the petitioner and the allottee presupposes the title of each and every party over the subject land which now requires to be partitioned.

¶17

In view of above, no patent illegality is found in the said communication of the District Magistrate dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure-1) impugned in the present case. The application merits to be dismissed. I order accordingly.

¶18

Before parting with the records, it is clarified that the impugned order (Annexure-1) insofar as it notices the status of the land which is the subject matter of the pending title (partition) suit shall not inure to the advantage of any of the party to the pending title (partition) suit.

¶19

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶20

HR/-

¶21

Punam Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punam Rai 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

Binod Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ravi Shankar Mishra Mallick Vs the Bihar State Hindu Relegiou

Vijoy Poddar @ Vijay Kumar Poddar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Satyadeo Choudhary Vs Arun Choudhary and Ors.

Pancham Rai Vs Bhuneshwar Singh and Ors.

Jairam Pandey and Anr. Vs Mahipal Yadav