The Court dismissed a Civil Review Petition challenging an order that had refused to interfere in land encroachment disputes. Holding that alleged encroachment involves disputed facts appropriate for trial courts, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents barring High Court interference under Article 226 in such matters.
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 REVIEW No.149 of 2021
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.1673 of 2019
======================================================
Jai Prakash Tiwary Son of Sri Sharda Nand Tiwari Resident at Jalalpur, P.O. and P.S. Jalalpur, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam (Aag 12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
5 14-03-2024 The present Civil Review petition is filed for recalling the order dated 1.3.2021 passed in C.W.JC. No.1673 of 2019 arising out of C.W.J.C. No.7528 of 2014.
Coordinate Bench while passing order on 1.3.2021 in L.P.A. No.1673 of 2019 has committed error in not appreciating the factual aspect of the matter.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.149 of 2021(5) dt.14-03-2024 2/3
Patna High Court C. REV. No.149 of 2021(5) dt.14-03-2024 3/3
would not be a hurdle, to invoke appropriate remedy before the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in accordance with law.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Amit/- sanjeev/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 regarding disputed questions of fact concerning alleged encroachment of private land by the State.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar PatilRelied on¶28
Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 · Who else cites this
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and anotehr vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd.Relied on¶28
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and anotehr vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jai Prakash Tiwary
State of Bihar
Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar
District Magistrate, Saran
Land Acquisition Officer, Saran
Circle Officer, Jalalpur, Saran
P. B. Bajanthri
Alok Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
