Saroj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.632 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13753 of 2010 ===========================================================
1. Sangeeta Mishra wife of Late Sushil Kumar Mishra
2. Sidharth Mishra, Son of Late Sushil Kumar Mishra Both resident of Village - Bajra, P.S. - Sahodara, District- West Champaran. Presently residing at Mohalla- Chaudhary Tola , P.O.- Mahendru, P.S. - Sultanganj, District- Patna-6. .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah
3. The Additional District, Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah
4. The Land Reforms Deputy, Collector, Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran.
5. The Anchal Adhikari, Gaunaha Anchal, West Champaran
6. The Circle Inspector, Gaunaha Anchal, West Champaran.
7. Saroj Kumar Son of Late Ram Kripal Singh
8. Ram Chandra Sah Son of Khedaru Sah
9. Rakesh Tiwari Son of Late Maheshwar Tiwari. Respondent no. 7 to 9 are resident of Village- Bajra, P.S.- Sahodara, District- West Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s with =========================================================== Letters Patent Appeal No. 1981 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13753 of 2010 ===========================================================
1. Saroj Kumar S/o of late Ram Kropal Singh R/o cf vill.- Bajra,police stationSahodara,Distt.- West champaran .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah
3. The Additional District Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Narkatiaganj, West Champaran
5. The Anchal Adhikari, Gaunaha Anchal, West Champaran
6. The Circle Inspector, Gaunaha Anchal, West Champaran
7. Ramchandra sah S/o khdru sah R/o of vill- Bajra,police station,sahodara,distt,- West Champaran
8. Rakesh Tiwari S/o late Maheshwar Tiwari R/o of vill.- Bajra, police stationSahodara,Distt.- West Champaran
9. Sangeeta Mishra W/o of late Sushil Kumar Mishra
10. Sidhatth Mishra S/o Late Sushil Kumar Mishra R/o of vill.- Bajra,police stationSahodara,Distt.- West Champaran at present residing at C/O Nirmala Devi,MohallaChaudhary Tola, post office - Mahendru, police station- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
(In LPA No.632 of 2015) For the Appellant/s : Mr Madhukar Krishna Sinha Mr. Ashutosh Singh For the State : Mr. SC 9 Kinkar Kumar
Patna High Court LPA No.632 of 2015 dt.26-07-2017 2/3 For Respondent No.7 : Mr Suraj Narayan Yadav Mr Binod Kumar Sinha (In LPA No.1981 of 2016) For the Appellant/s : Mr Suraj Narayan Yadav Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha For the State : Mr. Md. Khurdshid Alam, AAG 12 For Respondent No.9 : Mr Madhukar Krishna Sinha Mr Ashutosh Singh =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 26-07-2017 Both the appeals are taken up together. Heard counsel for the parties in both the appeals and the counsel for the State. Vide order dated 05.09.2014 in the writ application filed by the appellants of LPA No.632 of 2015, in which the appellant of LPA No.
1981 of 2016 was private respondent no.7, the learned Single Judge having heard the parties and after going into the merits of the matter came to a considered opinion that an order earlier passed by the LRDC could not be reviewed since there is no power of review. He, therefore, set aside the order dated 17th March, 2008 as well as the inspection report based on which the subsequent order was passed by the LRDC and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and a fresh inspection.
This Court was also taken through the previous order passed by the LRDC, Narkatiaganj. After going through the said order, the Court comes to a considered opinion that since the parties were not
Patna High Court LPA No.632 of 2015 dt.26-07-2017 3/3 given fair and free opportunity to place their case and surely on the statement made one sided, the LRDC allowed the appeal and ordered as he did in the case. It is essential that an opportunity of hearing in such a contested matter must be given to both the sides. Merely going by the statement made in the order that despite notice, the other side did not appear, seems to be a managed kind of service of notice, especially when the parties are here before the High Court keenly contesting the issue.
In the given facts, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge to set aside the order, remand the matter back for fresh consideration and that too within a time frame of six months, cannot be said to be irrational order or illegal order. Both the appeals stand disposed of with a direction that the parties, who are before this Court, will now get opportunity before the authorities for a fresh hearing and the time frame, which has been fixed by the learned Single Judge, should be adhered to from now. No interference is required with the order of the learned Single Judge.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) sk AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27.07.2017 Transmission Date NA