In Satyadeo Prasad vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed a 5-page long judgment dated August 11, 2025 dismissed the petition. This is the 17th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice. He observed:"We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, perused the materials on record. We are of the view that learned Single Judge has not recorded any specific finding that the respondent no. 11 is the owner of the land in dispute. Even that was not the question posed before the learned Single Judge for consideration and to decide. The learned Single Judge, after recording the averments made in interlocutory application filed by the respondent no. 11 as intervenor and after recording the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, simply observed that the petitioner was aware that the land in question belonged to respondent no. 11 and in that light made such type of observation. We may clarify that this was not the issue before the learned Single Judge."
The Letters Patent Appeal heas filed under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules against the 10-page long judgment dated September 13, 2024 by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, the Single Judge in Satyadeo Prasad vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue & Ors. (2024), Justice Verma had dismissed the petition saying,"it is crystal clear that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with ulterior motive, apart from that, petitioner was fully aware that the land in question belonged to respondent no. 11and without made him party, he has filed the present writ petition.11. No case is made out for interference of this Court, no merit in the writ petition."
The senior advocate for the appellant had raised limited grievance before the High Court that while dismissing/disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant, the Single Judge had observed that petitioner filed the petition with ulterior motive and he was fully aware that the land in question belonged to Anjani Kumar Sinha, the respondent no.11 and, therefore, against the aforesaid observation made by the Single Judge in paragraph no. 10 of the judgment, the appellant preferred the appeal. He submitted that he did not file the appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition but the appeal was filed with a limited grievance. He submitted that because of the observation made by the Single Judge, regarding the respondent no. 11 being the owner of the land and because different proceedings were pending before the concerned authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner would suffer prejudice. It was contended that the government was the owner of the land in dispute, despite this fact the observation was made by the Single Judge. It was contended that the land in question is Gair Mazarua Aam land and, in fact, the respondent no. 11 was not the owner of the said land and, therefore, the observation made by the Single Judge in paragraph no. 10 must be set aside or appropriate observation may be made by High Court.
The Advocate for the respondent no. 11 contended that the Single Judge did not give any finding in paragraph no.10 to the effect that the respondent no. 11 was/is the owner of the land. The counsel referred the observation made by the Single Judge in paragraph nos. 4 and 6 of the impugned judgment. It was also submitted that it appears that the Single Judge made that observation in paragraph no. 10 pursuant to the other orders passed by the High Court in various writ petitions filed by the respondent no. 11 or by the appellant/writ petitioner.
Modifying Justice Verma's judgment, Justice Pancholi concluded: "we may clarify that the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.10 of the impugned order shall not come in the way of the present appellant/writ petitioner or respondent no. 11 or the respondent-State in any pending proceedings before the concerned authority and/or if the civil proceedings are filed before the competent civil court with regard to the ownership of the land in dispute. 8. With the aforesaid clarification and observation, the present appeal stands disposed of."
No comments:
Post a Comment