Dismissed

Md. Tanvir and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Oct 2016L.P.A/1184/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court condoned a 312-day delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The main appeal was dismissed as the appellants were in unauthorized possession of the land and no remedy existed at the stage of the writ petition. No other relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. Interlocutory Application allowing condonation of delay allowed.

Md. Tanvir and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2015 Arising out of

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13884 of 2010 Along with

¶4

Interlocutory Application No.5018 of 2015

¶5

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

¶6

Md. Tanvir S/O Late Abdul Haque.

¶7

Ram Kumar Madheya S/O Dhena Mishtri

¶8

Nijam S/O Bakar Ali

¶9

Budhan Rishi S/O Late Molu Rishi

¶10

Md. Faruk S/O Mislim

¶11

Mannan S/O Late Bakar Ali

¶12

Md. Jamal S/O Late Bakar Ali

¶13

Mostt, Ujlefa Khatoon W/O Late Rehman

¶14

Mohboob S/O Abdul Rahman

¶15

Akmal S/O Nijam

¶16

Md. Siraj S/O Rahman

¶17

Md. Kalo S/O Samsul Haque.

¶18

Jamshed Alam S/O Late Abdul Kudus

¶19

Asfaque S/o Habibur Rahman

¶20

Abdul Kudush S/O Raishuddin

¶21

Umar Ali S/O Tabjul Hussain

¶22

Abdul Rajak S/O Islam

¶23

Md. Mustafa S/o Abdul Kudus

¶24

Ainul Haque @ Md. Ainul Haque S/O Noor Mohammad.

¶25

Habibur Rahman S/O Abdul Sattar

¶26

Lal Bano W/O Abdul Qayum

¶27

Sagar Rishi S/O Late Bhalu Rishi

¶28

All residents of village- Chethariya, P.S.- Mansahi, District- Katihar.

¶29

.... .... Petitioners-Appellant/s

¶30

Versus

¶31

The State of Bihar.

¶32

The District Magistrate, Katihar.

¶33

The Additional Magistrate, Land Ceiling, Katihar.

¶34

The Circle Officer, Mansahi, District- Katihar.

¶35

… … Respondents 1^st Set-Respondents 1^st Set. 5. Md. Manjoor Alam S/O Late Najruddin

¶36

Md. Nurul Haque S/O Late Muslim

¶37

Md. Taimur Alam S/O Arif Hussain

¶38

Md. Shahjahan S/O Md. Manjoor Alam

¶39

Md. Mubarak Hussain S/O Md. Manjoor Alam

¶40

Md. Hajrat S/O Md. Mumtaj Ali

¶41

All residents of village- Chitauria, P.S.- Mansahi, District- Katihar.

¶42

…. … Respondents 2^nd Set, Respondents 2^nd Set. 11. Mahendra NMarayn Jha S/O Jha S.O Late Raj Kishore Jha, resident of villageChitauria, P.S.- Mansahi, District- Katihar.

¶43

.... .... Respondent 3^rd Set- Respondent 3^rd Set.

¶44

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

¶45

Patna High Court LPA No.1184 of 2015 dt.21-10-2016

¶46

2/4

¶47

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 21-10-2016 Re.: Interlocutory Application No.5018 of 2015

¶48

The application is for condonation of delay of 312 days in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶49

For the reasons mentioned in the application, we find that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶50

Interlocutory Application stands allowed accordingly.

¶51

Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2015

¶52

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 14^th February, 2012 whereby the writ application was dismissed with liberty to the appellants to seek remedy of revision.

¶53

The brief facts are that in an appeal filed by Md. Manjoor Alam and others, private respondents in the writ application, the settlement in favour of Mahendra Narayan Jha was set aside and Manjoor Alam and others were ordered to be settled on the land in

¶54

Patna High Court LPA No.1184 of 2015 dt.21-10-2016

¶55

3/4

¶56

question. After the said order was passed, the appellants filed an application before the Collector, Katihar claiming possession over the land in question. The appellants prayed the following reliefs:-

¶57

“It is, therefore, prayed that your honour be pleased to admit the appeal, call for the record of Misc. Ceiling Case No.14 of 2009-10 from the office of the Additional Collector Ceiling and after due enquiry be pleased to set aside the impugned order and order to settle the land as per possession of these appellants and for this the appellants shall ever pray.”

¶58

The Additional Collector recommended to the Collector to consider the claim of the appellants sympathetically for settlement of land. Such recommendations were not accepted by the Collector on 2^nd of July, 2010. It is the said order which was challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Bench and the writ application dismissed.

¶59

The appellants claim to be in possession of the land which was earlier settled in favour of Mahendra Narayan Jha and later by virtue of an order of the Additional Collector in favour of Md. Manjoor Alam and others. The appellants could not explain as to how they entered into possession of land, thus they have to be treated as person in unauthorized possession. The appellants could not point out any Statute that a person in an unauthorized possession is entitled to settlement over the land which vested with the State after being declared as surplus. Since the entire claim of the appellants is based

¶60

Patna High Court LPA No.1184 of 2015 dt.21-10-2016

¶61

4/4

¶62

upon the unauthorized possession, which recommendation has not been accepted by the Collector, we do not find that any interference was called for in the writ application and also in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶63

Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the appellants to seek such other remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.

¶64

(Hemant Gupta, J.)

¶65

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

¶66

Sunil/-

¶67

AFR/NAFR	A. F. R.
CAVDATE	N.A.
UploadingDate	26.10.2016
Transmission Date

Md. Tanvir and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Tanvir and Ors. 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

Savita Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Bilat Paswan Vihangam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Balishwar Singh @ Baleshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs Gahendra Narain Singh and Ors.

Pramod Chandra Mannu Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sohan Prasad Vs The United Bank Of India and Ors.