Amod Kumar Sahu @ Amod Sahu v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13133 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. Amod Kumar Sahu @ Amod Sahu S/O Sri Jitendra Kumar Sahu Resident Of Village- Sahu Parbatta, Police Station- Parbatta, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.

3. The Deputy Collector, Land And Revenue, Naugachhia, District- Bhagalpur.

4. The Circle Officer, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur.

5. Sri Parmeshwar Soren, Anchal Amin, Revenue Section, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur.

6. Bipul Kumar Sah S/O Late Karmdeo Sah Resident Of Village- Sahu Parbatta, Police Station- Parbatta, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Thakur Mr. Amrendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ratna Kumari, J.,C. to S.C. -13 For the respondent no. 6: Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-03-2016 Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar for the petitioner, Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra for the private respondent and the Counsel for the State. The petitioner raises a grievance against the order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur in Misc. (Land Dispute Resolution) Appeal No. 118 of 2012-13. The application was lodged in this Court on 10.07.2013. Counsel for the private respondent has drawn attention of the Court to Section 9 of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 as amended on 30th January, 2013 in order to submit that the Tribunal constituted under the Act has the jurisdiction to consider any application arising

Patna High Court CWJC No.13133 of 2013 dt.18-03-2016 2/2 from the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 which is final. Having heard the Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the private respondent, the application is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Act for redressal of his grievance in respect of the impugned order which, if filed, shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law as quickly as possible.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that any such application ought to have been filed within a specified period of time. This Court observes that if an application seeking condonation of delay is filed, the Tribunal shall consider and pass appropriate order thereon taking into account that the petitioner had been bonafidely pursuing remedy before this Court.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U