Dismissed

Sharda Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC29 Nov 2022L.P.A/1159/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order rejecting a writ petition. The court held that the appellant failed to establish her claim to 50% of the land and that no objection was raised regarding the delay in filing the revision petition, thus no interference is warranted.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed and the original impugned order is confirmed.

Sharda Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1159 of 2019 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3403 of 2007

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sharda Devi W/o Sri Ram Yash Rai D/o Late Jagti Rai, Resident of VillageNarwara Kashi Chapra, P.o.- Tola Muja Narwara, P.s.- Baruraj, DistrictMuzaffarpur

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Director of Consolidation Muzaffarpur

¶9

Joint Director Consolidation Muzaffarpur

¶10

Consolidation Officer Muzaffarpur

¶11

Bhullan Rai S/o Late Bihari Gopa Resident of Village- Narwara, Kashi Chapra, P.o.- Tola Muja Narwara, P.s.- Baruraj, Distt.- Muzaffarpur (petitioner of Misc. Case No. 13 of 2006 under section 35 of the Consolidation Act)

¶12

Chalitra Rai S/o Late Nayak Rai Grand son of Late Bihari Gope, Resident of Village- Narwara, Kashi Chapra, P.o.- Tola Muja Narwara, P.s.- Baruraj, Distt.- Muzaffarpur (petitioner of Misc. Case No. 13 of 2006 under section 35 of the Consolidation Act)

¶13

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Jai Prakash Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG 12 For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Satya Ranjan Sinha, Adv. ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶15

Date : 29-11-2022

¶16

Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, learned advocate

¶17

for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, learned AC

¶18

to AAG-12.

¶19

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1159 of 2019 dt.29-11-2022 2/4

¶20

The appellant has challenged the order dated 09.08.2019 passed in CWJC No. 3403 of 2007 by a

¶21

learned Single Judge of this Court who has rejected the writ petition preferred by the appellant on the ground that even though the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2006 had entertained the revision petition after an inordinate delay under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) at the instance of the respondent nos. 5 & 6, the order was not assailable for the reason that in the first instance, the Joint Director, Consolidation had the jurisdiction to deal with such matter and that there was justification for deciding the revision petition at such a late stage, which further got confirmed by the fact that the appellant did not place any record/document before the Joint Director, Consolidation with respect to her claim of 50% of the land, said to be in possession of the respondent nos. 5 & 6.

¶22

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1159 of 2019 dt.29-11-2022 3/4

¶23

The claim of the appellant is that she hails from the same stock of family as a descendant of the Saudagar

¶24

Gope and daughter of Jagti Rai, who was also part of the bandobasti of the land in question.

¶25

The Joint Director, Consolidation, after having found that the land in question was not a Raiyati land but a land which has been settled in favour of Bihari Gope, which was the basis of issuance of Parcha (receipt), the appellant was required to demonstrate that she came from the family of Saudagar Gope and was entitled to half of the property in question. In the absence of any document to demonstrate the aforesaid claim, the appellant lost before the Joint Director, Consolidation.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant however has submitted that the Joint Director, Consolidation completely ignored Rule 28 of the Act which provides 30 days time for filing revision petition before the Joint Director, Consolidation.

¶27

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1159 of 2019 dt.29-11-2022 4/4

¶28

We find from the records that there was no objection before the Joint Director with respect to taking

¶29

up of the revision petition on behalf of the appellant and, therefore, such issue can not be raised now. The learned Single Judge has also gone on to say that factually, the appellant could not demonstrate her claim to half of the property in question and that the Joint Director, Consolidation was perfectly justified in passing the order against her.

¶30

We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶31

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶32

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶33

( Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶34

rishi/-

¶35

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	02.12.2022
Transmission Date

Sharda Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Managing Committee of Madarsa Madarstul Banat Azizul Uloom Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Nath Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Yamuna Manjhi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sujit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Nirala and Ors. Vs Rita Patel and Ors.

Shobha Choudhary @ Smt. Soma Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar