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.12120 of 2015
===========================================================
Ravi Sahu S/o - Mishri Sahu Resident of Village - Galma, Post - Ghanshyampur, P.S. - Ghanshyampur, District - Darbhanga.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr Uma Shankar, GP 4
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 16-05-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP XII for the respondents.
The present writ application has been filed for a direction to respondent No 3 to take needful action against respondents No 5 and 6 who are not allowing the petitioner to construct Indira Awas over the land appertaining to Thana No 344, Khata No 562, Khesra No 872 (new), 506 (old), an area of 7 dhurs situated in Village – Galma, PS – Ghanshyampur in the district of Darbhanga.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12120 of 2015 dt.16-05-2017
2/3
relying on the statement made in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No 2 and 3 that Title Suit No 30 of 2015 (Bhola Jha –Versus- Mishri Sah & Others) is pending between the parties with regard to the land in question. The said fact is being controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the land in question is not subject matter of Title Suit No 30 of 2015.
In view of this Court, the relief of the petitioner is based on disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved in the present proceedings. The parameters for deciding the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been elaborated in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation –Versus- Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 168. Paragraph – 30 of the judgment reads as follows:-
“30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by
Patna High Court CWJC No.12120 of 2015 dt.16-05-2017
3/3
any valid law; and host of other factors.
The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for the consideration of the Court and particularly in cases where public revenue and public interest are involved. Such directions are always required to be complied with by the State. No relief could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Further, empty and self-defeating affidavits or statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do not form basis to grant any relief to a person in a public law remedy to which he is not otherwise entitled to in law.”
In view of the facts stated above, this writ application is
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues in appropriate proceeding.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
M.E.H. /-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 22.05.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can decide a writ application based on disputed questions of fact pending in a civil title suit.
Whether a direction to resolve land title dispute belongs in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
City and Industrial Development Corporation –Versus- Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and OthersReferred¶25
City and Industrial Development Corporation –Versus- Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 168
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravi Sahu
The State of Bihar
Divisional Commissioner
Bhola Jha
Lalkant Jha
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Parties & counsel
