Patna High CourtL.P.A/1844/2016dismissed

Dayanand Mandal And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-12-13Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1844 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14726 of 2006 ======================================================

1. Dayanand Mandal.

2. Udyanand Mandal.

3. Jagarnath Mandal. Petitioners 1 to 3 sons of Chhedilal Mandal.

4. Anil Kumar Mandal, son of Ram Prasad Mandal.

5. Parmanand Mandal, son of Satyan Lal Mandal.

6. Upendra Mandal.

7. Lilamber Mandal.

8. Mayanand Mandal. Petitioner 6 to 8 sons of Late Ratan Mandal. All residents of Village- Urlaha, Police Station- Palasi, DistrictAraria.

9. Singheshwar Mandal, son of Late Tetanu Mandal, resident of Village- Mohania, P.S.- Palasi, District- Araria.

10. Kapileshwar Sah, son of Late Mayanand Sah, resident of Village- Urlaha, Police Station- Palasi, District- Araria. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. District Collector, Araria.

3. Additional Collector, Araria.

4. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria.

5. Anchal Adhikari, Palasi, District- Araria.

6. Sk. Siddique.

7. Sk. Ishaque. 6 & 7 sons of Sk. Ismail. Both resident of Village- Urlaha, P.S.- Palasi, District- Araria.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Kamal Kishore Mishra For the Respondent/s :

Mr. AC to AAG 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 13-12-2017 This Court is not satisfied or impressed with the reason given in I. A. No.7620 of 2016 which can compel this Court to condone a delay of 8 years and 14 days in preferring the appeal. We have glanced through the impugned order as well.

Patna High Court LPA No.1844 of 2016(3) dt.13-12-2017 2/2 There is no major infirmity emerging which could compel us to ignore the delay.

In view of the same, I. A. No.7620 of 2016 is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, even the appeal stands dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) sk U