Patna High CourtL.P.A/196/2018dismissed

The State Of Bihar And ORS v. Tarun Kumar Singh

2019-01-09The Chief Justice-,Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.196 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3097 of 2011 ======================================================

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Collector, Khagaria, District Khagaria.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khagaria, District Khagaria.

4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Khagaria.

5. The Anchal Adhikari, Khagaria, District Khagaria. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. Tarun Kumar Singh,

2. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, both sons of Late Mahendra Narain Singh,

3. Indrajeet Kumar Singh,

4. Chandrajeet Kumar Singh,

5. Devjit Kumar Singh,

6. Charanjeet Kumar Singh,

7. Ramanjeet Kumar Singh,

8. Amarjeet Kumar Singh, All sons of Late Arun Kumar Singh, R/o- VillageOlapur, Gangaur, P.S. Khagaria, District- Khagaria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Asif Kalim, AC to AAG- 12 For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 09-01-2019 The defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter is ignored.

2. Heard Shri Asif Kalim, learned counsel for the appellant-State of Bihar.

3. There is an inordinate delay of almost 4 years in the filing of this appeal. Apart from this, the State of Bihar has

Patna High Court LPA No.196 of 2018 dt.09-01-2019 2/2 filed this appeal and from a perusal of the impugned judgment dated 13th February, 2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3097 of 2011 that has given rise to this appeal, we find that there is a clear recital at internal page 6 of the impugned judgment that the State did not dispute the Jamindari returns as well as the Register-II which indicated the name of the predecessor-ininterest of the writ-petitioners.

4. The fact having not been disputed, whether the said entry was manipulated or fraudulent could not in such a summery jurisdiction be upturned by the Collector after almost 60 years. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in observing that this could be done only by recourse to a civil suit.

5. We, therefore, do not find any reason to either condone the delay or even entertain the appeal, which is, hereby dismissed.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) P.K.P./-Jagdish AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 09.01.2019 Transmission Date