Patna High Court

WRIT PETITION 9935 of 1999 on 15 April 1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9935 of 1999

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

Ram Bilash Bhagat @ Naresh Bhagat son of Dukha Bhagat resident of village Aguwanpur, P.O.Sisai, P.S. and district Purnea

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Deputy Director, Consolidation, Purnea

3. Consolidation Officer, Kahra at Saharsa

4. Smt. Rampari Bhagat wife of Bindeshwari Bhagat 5.Bhumi Bhagat son of Late Chhotkan Bhagat 6.Kamal Bhagat son of Late Chhotkan Bhagat, all residents of village Aguwanpur, P.O.Sisai, P.S. and district Purnea

.... .... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rekha Mukund

Mr. Sharvesh Chandra Verma Mr. Nishant Mukund For the Respondent/s : Mr. (GP-5)

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan

Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Jha

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDALORAL ORDER

11 13-09-2012

Page 1 of 2

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Purnea in revision Case No.33 of 1998 whereby the application/revision preferred by private respondents was allowed after hearing the parties. The writ petition asserts that the officer who exercised the jurisdiction under section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1956 ( for short the ‘Act’) was not empowered to exercise jurisdiction under section 35 of the Act.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 copy whereof was served on the counsel on 22.08.2000. No rejoinder thereto has been filed by the petitioner(s). In the counter affidavit the respondents have relied on Annexure-A to asserts that Deputy Director of Consolidation Purnea was delegated with power to function under section 35 of the Act with the sanction of the State Government, vide notification dated 6.11.98.

In view of aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in challenge to the said order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The order is otherwise well reasoned and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

The application is dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

HR/-

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead