Dismissed

Rama Prasad Singh, v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Apr 2023L.P.A/1314/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed regarding the settlement of government land. The court upheld the lower court's rejection of the appellant's claim, noting the land contained a public water tank and a temple, and the appellant failed to substantiate his oral claim that the land title had transferred to a third party.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to bear his own costs.

Rama Prasad Singh, Vs The State of Bihar — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1314 of 2019 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17005 of 2019

¶3

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

¶4

Rama Prasad Singh, aged about 70 years, male, Son of Late Sripati Singh, Resident of village - Sripalpur, P.S. - Kochas, District - Rohtas.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Collector, Rohtas.

¶9

The Additional Collector, Rohtas.

¶10

The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Rohtas.

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohtas.

¶12

¶13

The Anchal Adhikari, Kargahar, P.S. - Kochas, District - Rohtas.

¶14

Kamala Kuer, /o not known, resident of Village - Saraiya, P.S. - Kochas, District - Rohtas.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Tiwary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Trivedi Adv.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) Date : 07-04-2023

¶20

Re. I.A. No. 1 of 2019 :-

¶21

This interlocutory application has been filed

¶22

seeking condonation of delay of eight (8) days in filing

¶23

the present appeal.

¶24

For the reasons stated in the aforesaid

¶25

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1314 of 2019 dt.07-04-2023 2/4

¶26

application, the delay in filing the present appeal is, hereby, condoned.

¶27

The I.A. No. 1 of 2019 stands allowed.

¶28

Re. L.P.A. No. 1314 of 2019 :-

¶29

We have heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Tiwary for

¶30

the appellant and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Trivedi for the State.

¶31

The appellant was an ex-army man in

¶32

whose favour a proposal was initiated for settlement of gairmazarua aam land for the services rendered by him for the country.

¶33

When nothing was being done, the

¶34

appellant approached the competent authority, which rejected his petition. The appellant, thereafter, challenged the same before the Collector and thereafter

¶35

before the Commissioner, but to no avail. All the authorities found that the land in question, which the appellant wanted to get settled in his name for price,

¶36

was no doubt a public land, but a water-tank and a

¶37

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1314 of 2019 dt.07-04-2023 3/4

¶38

temple stands over that land.

¶39

In that view of the matter, when a water-

¶40

body, which is used by the public in general, and a temple, which is accessible to all the devotees, stand on the land, even though it is gairmazarua aam land, the

¶41

same cannot be settled in anyone’s favour, much less the appellant.

¶42

We do not have any document before us

¶43

to rely on the averment of the appellant that the proposal with respect to the same plot of land was initiated in his favour.

¶44

It is the contention of the appellant that if

¶45

at all, the said public land had a water-tank and a temple over it, how was it that that land later stood corrected in the name of one Kamla Kuer, who has been

¶46

impleaded in this appeal as respondent No. 7.

¶47

We find that aforesaid Kamla Kuer was

¶48

also impleaded as party in the writ petition, but she was never noticed; perhaps for the reason that the appellant

¶49

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1314 of 2019 dt.07-04-2023 4/4

¶50

as a writ-petitioner had only challenged the order passed

¶51

by the Commissioner, refusing to entertain his plea of

¶52

getting the land in question settled in his favour. It is, thus, only an oral statement of the appellant that the land which he wanted has now fallen in the kitty of respondent No. 7, even though it has a public watertank and a temple.

¶53

We cannot, without any evidence in that regard, accept such statement ipso facto.

¶54

We do not find any reason to differ with

¶55

the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶56

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶57

The appellant is left to bear his own cost.

¶58

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶59

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶60

Praveen-II/-

¶61

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	10/04/2023
Transmission Date	N/A

Rama Prasad Singh, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Prasad Singh, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Bihar Vs Shree Narain Yadav

S. K. Rahed Hussain Mia Vs The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board

Sumeshwar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, Vs Priya Ranjan Kumar

The State of Bihar Vs Priya Ranjan Kumar

The Bihar Staff Selection Commission Vs Abhay Kumar