Ramautar Pandit v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1521 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4944 of 2008 =========================================================== Ramautar Pandit, Son of Shree Asarfi Pandit, Resident of Village - Simribakhtiarpur, Block Chowk, Police Station Bakhtiarpur, District - Saharsa .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna

3. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharsa

4. Consolidation Officer, Simribakhtiarpur, District - Saharsa

5. Assistant Consolidation Officer, Simribakhtiapur, District Saharsa ...........Respondent Nos.1 to 5/Respondents

6. Md. Tarique Ali

7. Md. Ahtesham Alam

8. Md. Sarfaraz Alam

9. Gulanaz Parveen -

10. Shahista Khatoon 11.Rinki Khatoon All Sons of Daughter of Late Nasima Khatoon and Late Qumibuddin All resident of village - Madhuban, P.S. Simribakhtiarpur, P.O. Khamoti, District - Saharsa ( Substituted by the order dated 23.11.2009 ) .... .... Petitioenrs/Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Rajpati & Smt. Durga Kumari For the Respondent/s : Mr. Indeshwari Pd. Mandal, AC to GA3 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 24-08-2017 Seeking exception to an order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court in CWJC No. 4944 of 2008, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In a consolidation matter, in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of

Patna High Court LPA No.1521 of 2016 dt.24-08-2017 2/2 Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the learned Writ Court has found the statutory authority to have passed orders without conducting local inspection in terms of Section 10(7) of the Act. Instead of remitting the matter back for the said purpose by the appellate authorities and finding the action taken without spot inspection under Section 10(7) not proper, the matter has been remitted back to the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who has been directed to decide the matter within a period of six weeks in accordance with law.

In doing so, we are of the considered view that the learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting any interference into the matter.

The appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) mrl.

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 28.08.2017 Transmission Date N.A.