The petitioner, a tenant under the Bihar Tenancy Act, challenged the dismissal of his land claim. The High Court held the present writ petition incompetent and dismissed it because a prior writ petition regarding the same claim against one land-holder respondent had already been dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.5930 of 2002
=========================================================== Shivanand Mandal son of late Resham Lal Mandal, resident of village- Barad Batta, P.S. Palasi, District Araria.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Araria.
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Uday Bhanu Roy, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sharma, Adv. Mr.Anant Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Abbas Haider, SC-6
Mr. Hussain Majeed, Adv.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-09-2016
Heard the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.9.2001 passed in 48D B.T. Act Appeal Case No. 121 of 1996-97 by the S.D.O., Araria, the prescribed appellate authority, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, whereby the aforesaid appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the original authority i.e. Anchal Adhikari, Palasi in Case No. 58 of 199596 rejecting the claim of the petitioner under Section 48D of The Bihar Tenancy Act,1885 has been affirmed.
Though, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued the matter at great length, but he has fairly conceded that the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.5930 of 2002 dt.27-09-2016
2/2
rejected by the original authority as also the appellate authority.
The learned SC-6 appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, after looking into the records of the present case, on the other hand, submits that the present writ petition stood dismissed, as against respondent no. 7, on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 10.8.2004 passed by a Bench of this Court. He further submits that the respondent no.7 was one of the landholders against whom claim was raised by the petitioner, but in view of dismissal of the writ petition, as against the respondent no.7, the present writ petition has become incompetent and cannot proceed further.
After having heard the parties and taking into consideration the entire factual matrices, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the office note dated 26.9.2016, the submission made by the learned SC-6 is correct. This Court is further of the opinion that in view of dismissal of the writ petition, as against the respondent no.7- one of the landholders, the present writ petition has become incompetent and the issue raised here in the present proceeding on behalf of the petitioner cannot be effectively decided.
In above view of the matter, the present writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
BTiwary/-
| AFR/NAFR |
|---|
| CAVDATE |
| UploadingDate |
| Transmission Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable after dismissal of a previous writ petition against one of the land-holder respondents.
Shivanand Mandal
The State of Bihar through the Collector, Araria
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria
The Anchal Adhikari, Palasi
Shova Kanth Jha
Sachidanand Misrian
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
