In a dismissal of letters patent appeal, the Patna High Court upheld a single judge order that set aside a writ petition questioning the jurisdiction of a Deputy Director of Consolidation to hear a revision under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act.
The appeal was dismissed without any observation on the merits of the subject matter.
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.1215 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12886 of 2006
======================================================
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Mukund For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md.Khurshid Alam ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
10 05-12-2023 The respondents in the writ petition have filed the
above Appeal seeking to uphold the order impugned in the writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1215 of 2018(10) dt.05-12-2023 2/3
petition which was set aside on the question of jurisdiction.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1215 of 2018(10) dt.05-12-2023 3/3
5. The cited decision relied on Ramotar Yadav v. the State of Bihar 2001 (1) PLJR 266, which held that “the power of revision and reference vested in the Director of Consolidation under Section 35 of the Act can at best be exercised only by any of such authorities as defined under sub-section (4) of Section 2 which does not include the Deputy Director of Consolidation” (sic-para 13).
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
sanjeev/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to consider revision under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Pratap Singh v. State of BiharExplained¶35
2007 (1) PLJR 57
Ramotar Yadav v. the State of BiharRelied on¶37
2001 (1) PLJR 266
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Arbind Kumar
Prasant Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV ROY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
