Disposed¶49

Mosmat Devki Devi and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Writ under Article 226 – alternative statutory remedy

Patna HC1 Aug 2024CWJC/5301/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Harish Kumar, J.; decided 01-08-2024; CWJC No.5301 of 2018; Jamabandi cancellation; Additional Collector Supaul; Bihar Land Mutation Act 2011; alternative remedy (appeal to Collector, revision to Divisional Commissioner); Article 226; delay and laches; condonation of delay; land acquisition for Koshi Rail Maha Setu; Supaul; writ disposed of with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the Collector, who shall consider the application taking note that the matter was pending before the High Court since 2018. ¶49

Mosmat Devki Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should interfere with the Additional Collector's order dated 19.12.2014 cancelling the petitioners' Jamabandis when the petitioners have/had a statutory remedy of appeal before the Collector and revision before the Divisional Commissioner under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

Taking note that the petitioners have/had the statutory remedy available under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 (appeal before the Collector and revision before the Divisional Commissioner), the Court found no reason to interfere in the writ petition under Article 226.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioners file an appropriate appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the Collector, he shall consider the condonation application taking note of the fact that the matter was pending before this Court since 2018.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ under Article 226 - alternative statutory remedy - Jamabandi cancellation. Petitioners challenged the order dated 19.12.2014 of the Additional Collector, Supaul in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 13 of 2012-13 / 28 of 201213 cancelling Jamabandis standing in the names of the petitioners and their ancestors; their lands had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for construction of the Koshi Rail Maha Setu. Holding that the petitioners had a statutory remedy of appeal before the Collector and revision before the Divisional Commissioner under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, and noting the delay (order of 2014, writ filed 2018), the Patna High Court (Harish Kumar, J.) declined to interfere and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Collector along with a condonation-of-delay application, directing the Collector to consider the condonation in light of the pendency before the High Court since 2018. No precedent was cited; judgment is NAFR/oral.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5301 of 2018

¶3

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

¶4

Mosmat Devki Devi, wife of Late Parsuram Yadav

¶5

Mosmat Tara Devi, wife of Late Bindeshwari Yadav

¶6

Mosmat Sita Devi @ Sonia Devi, wife of Late Parmeshwari Yadav

¶7

Mosmat Umda Devi, wife of Late Bhogi Lal Yadav

¶8

Ramchandra Yadav, son of Late Bhogi Lal Yadav

¶9

Yogendra Yadav, son of Late Bhogi Lal Yadav

¶10

Bhupendra Yadav, son of Late Bhogi Lal Yadav

¶11

Sikendra Yadav, son of Late Bhogi Lal Yadav

¶12

Mosmat Amro Devi, wife of Late Asharfi Yadav

¶13

Surya Narayan Yadav, son of Late Asharfi Yadav

¶14

Gugli Yadav, son of Late Asharfi Yadav

¶15

Banarsi Yadav, son of Late Laljee Yadav

¶16

Parmeshwari Devi, wife of Sukhdeo Yadav

¶17

Ram Bilash Yadav, son of Late Dev Narayan Yadav @ Debu Yadav

¶18

Raj Kumar Yadav, son of Late Dev Narayan Yadav @ Debu Yadav

¶19

Raj Karan Yadav, son of Late Dev Narayan Yadav @ Debu Yadav

¶20

Bechan Yadav @ Bachchan Prasad Yadav, son of Dukhi Yadav

¶21

Kameshwar Yadav, son of Late Lal Bihari Yadav

¶22

Manoj Yadav, son of Late Lal Bihari Yadav

¶23

Binod Yadav, son of Late Lal Bihari Yadav, All residents of Village - Saraigarh, P.S. - Kishanpur, District - Supaul.

¶24

.. ... Petitioner/s

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Bihar through the Collector, Supaul.

¶27

The Collector, Supaul.

¶28

The Additional Collector, Supaul.

¶29

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul.

¶30

The D.C.L.R., Supaul.

¶31

The Circle Officer, Saraigarh, Bhaptiyahi, P.O. - Saraigarh, District - Supaul.

¶32

... ... Respondent/s

¶33

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

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.5301 of 2018 dt.01-08-2024 2/4

¶35

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Saurabh Kumar, AC to SC-19

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

Date : 01-08-2024

¶39

Heard Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Saurabh Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.

¶40

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Supaul in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 13 of 2012-13 / 28 of 201213, whereby and whereunder the Jamabandis have been cancelled, which were standing in the name of petitioners and their ancestors.

¶41

While assailing the impugned order of the Additional Collector, learned Senior Advocate contended that apart from the impugned order being illegal, arbitrary and with an intention to deprive the petitioners from getting compensation of their lands, which has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for construction of Koshi Rail Maha Setu, the same suffers from the vice of discrimination. However, after some argument, confronting with the situation that against the order of the Additional Collector cancelling the Jamabandis,

¶42

Patna High Court CWJC No.5301 of 2018 dt.01-08-2024 3/4

¶43

there is a provision of appeal before the Collector and thereafter the provision of revision before the Divisional Commissioner under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2011’); the learned senior counsel contended that the order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and makes the order illegal, thus the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere in the matter.

¶44

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submitted at the Bar that the petitioners have statutory remedy available under the Act, 2011. It is also contended that the order of Additional Collector was passed way back in the year 2014 and the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2018 and thus the delay has caused on the part of the petitioners.

¶45

Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the petitioners have/had the statutory remedy available under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011; this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the present writ petition.

¶46

Suffice it to say that if the petitioners file an appropriate appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the Collector, he shall consider the application taking note of the fact that the matter was pending before this

¶47

Patna High Court CWJC No.5301 of 2018 dt.01-08-2024 4/4

¶48

Court since 2018.

¶49