Dismissed

Ram Murat Nonia and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC9 Sept 2016L.P.A/607/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this Letters Patent Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal of a revision filed over 20 years after the original consolidation order. The court held that exercising revisional jurisdiction requires a reasonable time limit, citing a Supreme Court precedent that undue delay defeats such jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of a belated revision was dismissed; the order of 17.09.2013 upholding the dismissal of the revision is set in the right.

Ram Murat Nonia and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.607 of 2014

¶3

Arising out of

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4282 of 2008

¶5

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

¶6

Ram Murat Nonia Son of Late Ram Vilash Nonia

¶7

Jawahir Nonia Son of Late Ram Vilash Nonia

¶8

Sheo Murat Nonia Son of Late Ram Vilash Nonia All Are Residents of Village - Belaon, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District - Kaimur (Bhabhua) At Present Rampur Consolidation Office, P.S. Bhabhua, District - Kaimur ( Bhabhua )

¶9

.... .... Appellant/s Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna

¶12

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas - Cum - Kaimur

¶13

Consolidation officer, Bhagwanpur, District Kaimur ( Bhabhua )

¶14

Assistant Consolidation officer, Bhagwanpur, District - Kaimur ( Bhabhua )

¶15

Sheo Pujan Mahto Son of Late Harpat Mahto

¶16

Aliar Mahto Son of Late Harpat Mahto

¶17

Surendra Mahto Son of Late Harpat Mahto

¶18

Respondents 6 To 8 Are Residents of Village - Belaon, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District - Kaimur ( Bhabhua ) At Present Rampur, P.O. Kharenda, Sub - Division Bhabhua, District Kaimur ( Bhabhua )

¶19

.... .... Respondent/s

¶20

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh with Mr. Abhishek, Advocates For the State : Mr. R.B.N. Singh, AC to GA 10 For the Respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶23

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)

¶25

Date: 09-09-2016

¶26

The order dated 17^th September, 2013 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court is the subject matter of challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal. By the aforesaid order, the revision filed before the Director, Consolidation under Section 35 of

¶27

Patna High Court LPA No.607 of 2014 dt.09-09-2016

¶28

2/3

¶29

the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) was dismissed on 13.12.2007 on the ground that after confirmation of Mauja and issuance of certificate of transfer, the appellants cannot raise the dispute de novo.

¶30

A perusal of the order shows that the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 22.07.1976, though no appeal against the said order was filed but a revision was filed after more than two decades. The revisional has been rightly dismissed for the reason that the revisional jurisdiction is required to be invoked within a reasonable time and not after deep slumber.

¶31

We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench. The Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised under Section 35 of the Act, even in the absence of any time limit fixed therein, within a reasonable time. Such is the view taken by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Collector v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695 , wherein the Court held as follows:-

¶32

“31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power

¶33

Patna High Court LPA No.607 of 2014 dt.09-09-2016

¶34

3/3

¶35

especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.”

¶36

Therefore, the appellants could not seek set aside of an

¶37

order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1976 by way of a revision filed in the year 2007.

¶38

In view thereof, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Revisional Authority and by learned Single Bench which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed.

¶39

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶40

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶41

Anjani/P. Kumar

¶42

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAVDATE	N/A
Uploading Date	19-09-2016
Transmission Date	N/A

Ram Murat Nonia and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Murat Nonia 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upendra Kumar Ray Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Shree Bishwanathjee Mills Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Shree Shankar Rice Mill Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Padarath Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rabindra Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Praveen Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.