In Shila Singh @ Shilanath Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Partha Sarthy delivered a 8-page long judgment dated July 22, 2025, wherein, the bench upheld the 4-page long judgment dated February 9, 2017 delivered by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah by Ravindra Nath Singh vs. The Union of India & Ors (2017) Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16760 of 2016. This is first judgment authored by Justice Pancholi as the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The bench observed that "in the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the concerned petitioner, this Court did not examine the merits of the case of the said petitioner and the liberty was reserved to him to file representation before the concerned authority with further direction to the authority that as and when such representation is filed by the concerned petitioner, the same shall be examined on its own merits. We are, therefore, of the view that in the said petition the concerned learned Single Judge did not decide the case on merits.
Justice Pancholi observed: "....We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition. Accordingly, this appeal is required to be dismissed."
As Single Judge bench of the High Court, Justice Amanullah had passed the judgment upon hearing the petitioner who had moved the Court seeking a direction to the respondents to implement their policy of providing a job to the persons whose lands has been acquired for the purposes of constructing railway bridge over the river Ganga at Rupaspur in the District of Patna.
The Letters Patent Appeal was filed under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules, wherein the appellant/original petitioner had challenged the judgment dated December 12, 2022 passed by Single Judge in CWJC No. 9163 of 2015, where by the Single Judge had dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. The counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was the owner of the land which was acquired by the respondent-Railways. The appellant claimed that award in respect of 19 dhurs out of 2 kathas of land was made in favour of his mother. He also alleged that for remaining 1 katha and 1 dhur, award was prepared in the name of one Zubaida Bibi wife of Habib Mian, though she has no right, title, interest or possession over the said land. It was further submitted that L.A.R. Case No. 2/2013 was pending in the court of Sub-Judge-II, Saran at Chapra with regard to the dispute.
The appellant claimed to be the son of Ram Jyoti Devi who died in the year 2005. He prayed that as per the policy of the Railways, which was framed in the year 2007, the son of the appellant was entitled to get employment in the Railways.
But the Single Judge had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner mainly on two grounds; firstly that the Single Judge considered that the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2002 whereas the petitioner filed the petition in the year 2015. Therefore, there was a delay of 13 years in filing the petition and, therefore, Single Judge did not consider the case of the petitioner on merits, so far as parcel of the land was concerned. Secondly, so far as remaining parcel of land was concerned, i.e., 1 katha 1 dhur land, which was acquired by the respondent-Railways, The Single Judge had observed that the dispute with regard to the grant of compensation for the said land is pending before court of Sub-Judge-II, Saran at Chapra in L.A.R. Case No. 2/2013. He also observed that the said land is less than 0.2 acres and as the dispute is pending before the concerned court, petitioner would not be entitled to any compensation. The Single Judge did not entertain the petition on that count also.
The appellant's counsel, had urged that the Single Judge committed an error while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. He also submitted that this Court may grant liberty to the appellant to file appropriate proceeding after the dispute is resolved by Sub-Judge-II, Saran at Chapra in L.A.R. Case No. 2/2013. He further prayed that the appellant be permitted to file representation before the respondent authority with regard to the prayers made in the present petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment