This Letters Patent Appeal challenged a Writ Court order in a land consolidation matter directing remittal due to lack of local inspection under Section 10(7) of the Bihar Consolidation Act. The High Court upheld the Writ Court's decision, dismissing the appeal.
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
Letters Patent Appeal No.1521 of 2016 IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4944 of 2008
===========================================================
Ramautar Pandit, Son of Shree Asarfi Pandit, Resident of Village - Simribakhtiarpur, Block Chowk, Police Station Bakhtiarpur, District - Saharsa
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
………..Respondent Nos.1 to 5/Respondents
.... .... Petitioenrs/Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Rajpati & Smt. Durga Kumari For the Respondent/s : Mr. Indeshwari Pd. Mandal, AC to GA3
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 24-08-2017
Seeking exception to an order dated 24.06.2016 passed by
the learned Writ Court in CWJC No. 4944 of 2008, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
In a consolidation matter, in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of
Patna High Court LPA No.1521 of 2016 dt.24-08-2017
2/2
Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the learned Writ Court has found the statutory authority to have passed orders without conducting local inspection in terms of Section 10(7) of the Act. Instead of remitting the matter back for the said purpose by the appellate authorities and finding the action taken without spot inspection under Section 10(7) not proper, the matter has been remitted back to the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who has been directed to decide the matter within a period of six weeks in accordance with law.
In doing so, we are of the considered view that the learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting any interference into the matter.
The appeal stands dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)
mrl.
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| UploadingDate | 28.08.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
N.A. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the statutory authority acted without conducting local inspection contravening Section 10(7) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
Whether failure to remit the matter back for spot inspection by the appellate authorities constitutes an error warranting interference in a Letters Patent Appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramautar Pandit
The State of Bihar
Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharsa
Consolidation Officer, Simribakhtiarpur
Assistant Consolidation Officer, Simribakhtiapur
Rajendra Menon
Anil Kumar Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
