Abdul Sattar v. The State of Bihar
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal against a Single Judge's order upholding the Bihar Land Tribunal's decision, the Supreme Bench of the Patna High Court rejected the claim that the appellant acquired raiyati rights. The Court held that handing over cultivating possession in 1980 precluded the acquisition of such rights under Section 48(D).
What did the court decide?
The writ petition was dismissed and the appeal was rejected, affirming the order of the Bihar Land Tribunal that the appellant did not acquire raiyati rights.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.161 of 2020 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1406 of 2020
====================================================== Abdul Sattar, son of Late Haji Maniruddin, resident of Arrabari, P.S.Paharkatta (Old Pothia), District- Kishanganj, presently residing at Ram Chandra Pur, P.S. Pranpur, District- Katihar.
... ... Appellant/s Versus
- The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Patna.
- The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
- The Sub Divisional Officer, Kisanganj.
- The Circle Officer, Pothia within the District of Kisanganj. 5. Tahjuna Khatoon, widow of Late Shamsul resident of Village- Arrabari, P.S.Paharkatta, District- Kishanganj.
- Badruddin, son of Late Shamsul. resident of Village- Arrabari, P.S.Paharkatta, District- Kishanganj.
- Tasruddin, son of Late Shamsul resident of Village- Arrabari, P.S.Paharkatta, District- Kishanganj.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner acquired raiyati rights under the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 despite handing over cultivating possession to another person in 1980.
Whether the findings of the Single Judge regarding the non-acquisition of raiyati rights are perverse and borne out from the record.
Whether the petitioner's right to protection under Section 48(C) is defeated by the provisions of Section 48(D) of the Act.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Abdul Sattar
- respondent
State of Bihar and others
Coram
Sanjay Karol
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court