In a writ petition challenging revenue orders rejecting alleged land settlement claims, the Patna High Court disposed of the matter summarily as no petitioner appeared and no advocate was instructed despite opportunities. The petitioner was advised to approach civil court for redressal.
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.9157 of 1995
=========================================================== 1. Bishwanath Yadav
All sons of Mangal Yadav, residents of Village Dihi Pakri Tola Malahi, Police Station- Thakarahan, District- West Champaran.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, G.A. 10
Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to G.A. 10.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-04-2015
No one appears on behalf of the petitioners.
On 11.07.2014, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
The petitioners’ claim that the land in question situated in village Dihipakri, Anchal Thakrahan, District- West Champaran, was settled with them by ex-landlord U.P. Sugar Mills Company Limited in the year 1950. However, the said settlement was doubted by the Revenue authorities right from the D.C.L.R. up to Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Settlement Case No. 24/77-78, Revenue Appeal No. 107/78-79 and Case No. 139 Misc./80-81.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9157 of 1995 dt.09-04-2015
2 / 2
The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 31.03.1995, passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division (respondent no.2) in Case No. 139 Misc./80-81, affirming the order of Additional Collector, West Champaran (respondent no. 3) in Revenue Appeal No. 107/78-79, which in turn affirmed the order dated 22.08.1977, passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and Sub-Divisional Officer approving alleged settlement in favour of the petitioners.
Counsel for the State submits that both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have given substantial reasons for holding that the settlement of the petitioners was not genuine, rather it was fake one.
The petitioners however, if so advised, may approach the civil court for redressal of their grievances.
This application stands disposed of.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)
Uday/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the claim for setting aside the order confirming the impugned settlement as fake should be disposed of given non-appearance of petitioners.
Bishwanath Yadav
Kishnath Yadav
Sita Ram Yadav
The State of Bihar
The Commissioner, Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur
The Additional Collector, West Champaran, at Bettiah
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
