AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We heard the counsel for the appellants. The sole contention canvassed before us by him is that the appeal from the order dated 15.1.1999 did not lay before the Additional Collector.
We find no merit in the submission. The order dated 15.1.1999 has been passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 48E(7) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Section 48F of the Act provides for an appeal from an order referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 48E of the Act. According to this provision, when an order is passed by an officer other than a Collector of the district, the appeal would lay before the Collector of the district or any other officer specially empowered by the State-Government by notification to hear such appeals. It appears, therefore, that the Additional Collector had the competence to hear the appeal. Moreover, no such objection in hearing the appeal, has been raised.
L.P.A. has no merit and is dismissed in limine.
Re: I.A. No. 620 of 2008
The appeal suffers from delay of one year 256 days. For condonation thereof, I.A. No. 620 of 2008 has been made. Although the application does not explain the long delay of one year 256 days, since we have heard the counsel for the appellants on merit, the delay in filing the appeal pales into insignificance. I.A. No. 620 of 2008 stands disposed of accordingly.