Meera Shahi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2 of 2016 (2) dt.06-05-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.2 of 2016 ====================================================== Meera Shahi .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raju Giri- Gp30 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 06-05-2016 Heard, Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Aditi Ansaria, A.C. to G.P.-30, appearing for the State-respondents.

2.

The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for declaration that the entry in the name of the State of Bihar in Khatiyan is wrong. The defendants-state authorities filed written statement claiming that, in fact, the suit property was Parti land and vested in the State of Bihar. The court below on the basis of the evidences and the materials dismissed the plaintiff's suit recording finding that there is no dispute that the suit property was Parti land. Therefore, the suit property vested in the State of Bihar after abolition of the Zamindari in the year 1956. In the appeal, amendment application has been filed by the appellant-petitioner to the effect that, in fact, the land is not Parti that there is Pokhar and private Mandir of the plaintiff. The court below, by the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2 of 2016 (2) dt.06-05-2016 impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that if the amendment is allowed, there will be de novo trial. According to the court below, the Pleader Commissioner's report is available on the record, therefore, since it is a piece of evidence, the same can be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3.

Perused the judgment passed by the trial court, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ application. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that the nature of the land was admitted to be Parti land. The only question to be decided is whether the land vested in the State of Bihar or not in the year 1956. The relief claimed by the plaintiff that the entry in the name of the State of Bihar in the record of right is wrong. Therefore, the learned court below considering all these aspects of the matter has held that the plaintiff is now trying to introduce entirely new pleading, which is contradictory to the original. 4.

In such view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) brajesh/- U