Criminal Revision rejected. Petitioners sought revision of possession declaration by Sub-Divisional Magistrate based on spot inspection; court found no merit due to lack of proof regarding notice.
Rejection of the revision application.
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.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.438 of 2011 dt.09-02-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.438 of 2011
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- BEGUSARAI
===========================================================
1. Munna Sah.
2. Ravi Kumar Sah.
3. Pintu Kumar Sah.
4. Tinku Kuamr
5. Raji Sah@Rajesh Sah.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Azadi Singh
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 09-02-2016
The petitioners seek revision of the order dated
24.01.2011 by which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balia in Case
No. 100M of 2009 has declared the possession of the Opposite Party
no. 2 on the disputed land on the basis of spot inspection by the Circle
Inspector.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the
inspection was done without notice to them but they are unable to
satisfy this Court with regard to the same. Hence I do not find any
merit in the application. The same is rejected.
(Anjana Prakash, J)
Prakash/-
U T
Munna Sah
Ravi Kumar Sah
Pintu Kumar Sah
Tinku Kuamr
Raji Sah
Azadi Singh
Anjana Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
