Allowed

Harihar Singh @ Harihar YADAVand v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC9 Apr 2015CWJC/8837/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that a revision order dismissing a case for default cannot be sustained without notice to the opposite party. The impugned order dated 11.7.1994 by the Joint Director of Consolidation was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with liberty to seek alternative remedies.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 11.7.1994 passed by Respondent No. 2 is set aside with liberty to parties to resort to other remedies available in law.

Harihar Singh @ Harihar YADAVand Vs State of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8837 of 1995

¶3

======================================================

¶4

HARIHAR SINGH @ HARIHAR YADAV

¶5

ANGRAHIT SINGH

¶6

DEVAKI SINGH ALL SONS OF SURAJ YADAV @ SURAJ SINGH, DECD. 4. MOST.BUDHIA WIFE OF DASAI SINGH, DECD.

¶7

SINGASHAN SINGH SON OF DASSI SINGH, DECD.

¶8

BUGA MINOR SON OF DASAI SINGH, DECD. MINOR SON UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS MOTHER MOST BUDHIA, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAIRA BHUTAHA, POST OFFICE NATWAR, POLICE STATION SANJHAWALI, DISTRICT ROHTAS ... .... Petitioners Versus

¶9

STATE OF BIHAR 2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, ROHTAS, SASARAM 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, BIKRAMGANJ, ROHTAS 5. DURGUN SINGH @ DKURGAN SINGH YADAV SON OF DEOKI SINGH @ DEVALAL SINGH, DECD. RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KHAIRA BHUTAHA, POST OFFICE NATWAR, POLICE STATION SANCHAWALI, DISTRICT ROHTAS .... .... Respondents

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh, Advocate and

¶11

Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Kr.Upadhyay, AC to GP 10. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶12

8 09-04-2015 The petitioners submit that while admitting the writ application on 11.8.1997, this Court had issued notice to respondent no.5 observing that ‘ during pendency of this application, operation of the order, contained in Annexure 7, shall remain stayed’. They submit that they had filed an application before the Consolidation authorities for entry of their name in the records of right which was allowed by the Consolidation officer, Bikramganj vide order dated 5.9.1988, passed in Consolidation case no. 10 of 1988-89. They further submit that respondent no.5, who was stranger to the family, straightway filed Revision case no. 829 of 1990 before the

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.8837 of 1995 (8) dt.09-04-2015

¶14

¶15

Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna against order dated 5.9.1988 in stead of filing a regular appeal before the concerned Deputy Director, Consolidation. It appears from the order of the revisional court that the case was dismissed on 14.4.1992 but was subsequently restored on 14.3.1993. The petitioners submit that the case was again dismissed on 4.8.1993.

¶16

Grievance of the petitioners is that without notice to them though they were opposite party, the revision application was allowed by the Director of Consolidation, Bihar. In any view of the matter, no notice was issued to them after dismissal of the case on default. It appears that respondent no.5 has not filed appearance in spite of valid service of notice. In such circumstances, the submission of the petitioners has to be accepted. Once the case is dismissed for default, then at least without a notice to the other side, the case ought not to have been heard and disposed of finally, which is the situation in the instant case. As such, the impugned order dated 11.7.1994, passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation (respondent no.2) is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside with liberty to the parties to take resort to remedy available under the law.

¶17

The writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above.

¶18

Shashi. U

¶19

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

Harihar Singh @ Harihar YADAVand v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harihar Singh @ Harihar YADAVand v. 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

Rajani Kant Ranjan and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Lakhan Adhikari Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Prabhat Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Habbiul Haque Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Bishwanath Yadav and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Medi Gorhi and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.