A writ petition challenging an order directing restoration of possession of a shop to respondent no. 9. The court found the petitioner failed to prove a family arrangement or that the shop was registered in his name, dismissing the petition.
The petition against the order directing restoration of possession was dismissed.
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.2912 of 2020
======================================================
Ashok Sah S/o Radhey Shayan Sah R/o Mohalla - Mahboob Khan Tola, P.S. and District - Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subash Chandra Yadav (GP15) Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, Advocate Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 19-01-2023
Heard Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, learned Advocate for
the petitioner, Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad for respondent/State and Mr. S.K. Das for respondent no. 9.
The petitioner and respondent no. 9 are own brothers. The dispute relates to a shop erected by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2020 dt.19-01-2023 2/4
respondent State on the Khas Mahal property. The shop was let out in the name of respondent no. 9. However, the petitioner had been running the shop with the concent of respondent no. 9. There had been a family partition and according to the petitioner, in the arrangement made in the family for distribution of the assets, respondent no. 9 acquiesced that the shop should continue to be run by the petitioner. Later, Respondent no. 9 made a complaint before the Public Grievance Redressal Cell that notwithstanding the registration of the shop in the name of respondent no. 9, the petitioner had been illegally occupying the same.
The matter was inquired into by the Public Grievance Redressal Cell and the First Appellate Authority viz. the Commissioner was of the view that since the registration of the shop was in the name of respondent no. 9 and not the petitioner and there was nothing on record to indicate that respondent no. 9 had acquiesced in the family arrangement of partition that the petitioner shall continue to remain in occupation of the shop, there was no way in which the petitioner could have been allowed to continue in the shop.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2020 dt.19-01-2023 3/4
Considering such factual situation, the
Commissioner, the First Appellate Authority directed the concerned officer of the district to have the possession of the shop restored to respondent no. 9.
This is what has been challenged by the petitioner. We have perused the records.
None of the parties in the first instance had brought any document suggesting registration in the name of respondent no. 9.
However, Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad learned counsel for the State by inviting our attention to the complaint made by the petitioner in that regard asserted that it was the case of the petitioner himself that the petitioner had got a shop registered in the name of respondent no. 9.
In this view of the matter, we have no other material to accept the cause of the petitioner when we have found that before the Commissioner/First Appellate Authority of the Public Grievance Redressal Mechanism, both the parties were present and it could not be conclusively proved by the petitioner that the shop was registered in his name.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2912 of 2020 dt.19-01-2023 4/4
We have also perused Annexure-1 which is the registration of the shop in the name of the petitioner for running a sweet shop under the name and style of ‘Akanchha Sweets’. This shop but has been registered in the name of the petitioner which is being carried out from the space which was allotted in the name of respondent no. 9.
The petition is thus dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
kundan
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 25.01.2023 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue occupying a shop registered in the name of respondent no. 9 against the directions of the First Appellate Authority.
Whether the petitioner has disproved that a family arrangement partitioned the shop to him.
Ashok Sah S/o Radhey Shayan Sah
The State of Bihar
The Deputy Development Commission (D.D.C.), Purnia
The C.O., Purnea Sadar
The B.D.O., Purnea Sadar
Subodh Kumar Gupta S/o Radheshyam Sah
Ashutosh Kumar
Satyavrat Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
