Pulish Soren And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1450 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3290 of 2014 ===========================================================
1. Pulish Soren son of Late Mangal Soren, resident of Village- Kajara, Tola Dohita Bari, P.S. Mirganj, Distt. Purnea
2. Raghu Soren @ Raagu Soren, Son of late Mangal Soren, resident of VillageKajara, Tola Dohita Bari, P.S. Mirganj, Distt. Purnea
3. Sanjay Soren, son of late Mangal Soren, resident of Village- Kajara, Tola Dohita Bari, P.S. Mirganj, Distt. Purnea .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Purnea null null
2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dhamdaha, Distt. Purnea
3. Fekan Mandal
4. Suresh Mandal Both are sons of Hari Mandal resident of village Bhangaha, P.S. Falka, Distt. Katihar
5. Chinti Devi, wife of Late Satya Narayan Mandal
6. Subhash Prasad Mandal, son of Late Satya Narayan Mandal
7. Anil Kumar Mandal son of Late Satya Narayan Mandal
8. Manoj Kumar Mandal, son of Late Satya Narayan Mandal
9. Pappu Kumar Mandal, Minor son of Late Satya Narayan Mandal through his mother Chinti Devi the natural guardian. All are resident of village- Kajra, P.S. Mirganj, Distt.- Purnea .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 04-05-2017 By a common order dated 13.05.2014 six writ applications were clubbed together because they arose out of same identical question of fact and kind of common order emanating from the level of the D.C.L.R. as well as the Collector, Purnea. Since the appeal of the present appellants was also dismissed by the Collector,
Patna High Court LPA No.1450 of 2014 dt.04-05-2017 2/2 who refused to hold them under raiyats (Bataidaar), the writ application came to be preferred. The learned single Judge went through the order of the D.C.L.R. as well as the Collector and agreed with the concurrent finding that there was no adequate materials and evidence to hold and declare that the appellants were Bataidaar. When concurrent findings being what they are and nothing new emerging even in the memo of appeal, which can knock out those findings, the affirmance of the orders of the D.C.L.R. and the Collector and refusal to interfere with the same by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be bad law.
Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) Pawan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 05.05.2017 Transmission Date N/A