Anmol Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7278 of 2016 ======================================================
1. Anmol Yadav
2. Raj Kishore Yadav Both are sons of Late Hari Lal Yadav and residents of Village- Kanhaili, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principle Secretary, Revenue, Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Forbesganj, Araria
3. The Circle Officer, Narpatganj, Forbesganj
4. Rajo Yadav
5. Satto Yadav,
6. Ramanand Yadav, Respondent nos. 4 to 6 are sons of Late Panchanand Yadav
7. Tarkeshwar Yadav,
8. Jay Kumar Yadav
9. Anand Yadav,
10. Shivanand Yadav, Respondent nos. 7 to 10 are sons of Late Uday Chand Yadav and residents of village- Kanhaili, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr.Ambrish Rahul, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to AAG 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-12-2016 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AC to AAG 14 appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
The matter in issue is the claim raised on behalf of the petitioners under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act (in short "B.T.Act") with respect to the lands, fully detailed in paragraph 3A of the writ petition.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2016 passed in B.L.T.Case No. 733 of 2014 by the learned Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, as contained in Annexure-5 to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7278 of 2016 (2) dt.06-12-2016 2/2 writ petition, whereby the aforesaid case filed on behalf of the petitioners has been dismissed and the orders passed by the respondent Circle Officer, Narpatganj, as contained in Annexure-3 as also the appellate order passed by the respondent S.D.O. Forbisganj, as contained in annexure-4, rejecting the claim raised on behalf of the petitioners under Section 48D of the B.T.Act have been affirmed.
From the facts noticed above, it is apparent that by recording concurrent findings of fact, all the three authorities have rejected the claims of the petitioners under Section 48D of the B.T.Act with respect to the lands in question. Though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued the matter at some length, but he has not been able to point out any legal infirmity or procedural error in the orders impugned.
In above view of the matter, this Court does not feel persuaded to interfere with the orders impugned passed by the authorities concerned, which have been affirmed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/- U