High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 02 PAT CK 0095

Naresh Kumar Mandal @ Naresh Kumar Mandal And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Patna High Court · Decided on 1 February 2018 · Citation: (2018) 4 PLJR 364

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Menon, CJ · Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Letters Patent Appeal No. 853 Of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5590 Of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 352 words

Seeking exception to an order dated 14.03.2011 passed in CWJC No. 5590 of 2005 by the learned Writ Court this appeal under Clause 10 of the

Letters Patent has been filed.

Appellants herein were respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition in question and by the impugned order quashed the resolution of the Board of

Revenue dated 21.02.2005 passed in Revision Case No. 141 of 2003 and the order passed in appeal by the Additional Collector, Darbhanga, on

26.05.2003 in Appeal No. 3 of 2001 has been set aside and the right of pre-emption of the original petitioner, respondent herein Shiv Lal Mandal, has

been upheld.

Even for various grounds are raised in the affidavit and material produced before us and even the pendency of a Title Suit with regard to the area in

question is indicated we find that in the writ petition, appellants herein Naresh Kumar Mandal and Raj Narain Mandal did not file their counter

affidavit. It is their contention that the entire writ petition was heard and decided based on judgment of this Court without appreciating the fact that

orders of the Board of Revenue and the appellate authority concluded by concurrent finding of fact has been interfered with without indicating as to

what is the perversity in the concurrent finding which warrants interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

We have gone through the entire order passed and we find that there is no finding recorded as to how the finding concurrent in nature recorded by the

statutory authorities are unsustainable. Even without considering the relevant facts, particularly with regard to the Title Suit pending and various other

issues having been adverted to, the writ petition was allowed. In our considered view the learned Writ Court has committed an error allowing the writ

petition.

Accordingly, we allow this appeal, quash the order dt. 14.03.2011 passed by the learned Writ Court and remand the matter back to the Writ Court

restoring CWJC No. 5590 of 2005 to its original file with a direction to the office for its listing before an appropriate Bench.