Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1159 (PAT)

Sukhdeo Sah v. State of Bihar

2013-09-20

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2013
Birendra Prasad Verma, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. However, none appears on behalf of respondent no. 5. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 15.7.1992 (Annexure-6) passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 1386 of 1987 and 1387 of 1987 analogously by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, whereby claim of respondent no. 5 with respect to the lands under dispute has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that in Title Suit No. 274 of 1974/8 of 1977 judgment and decree was passed by the Civil Court in favour of respondent no.5 with respect to the lands under dispute, but Title Appeal No. 16 of 1978/ 4 of 1981 preferred by the petitioners abated in terms of Section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short Act). 3. While assailing the impugned order dated 15.7.1992 (Annexure-6), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised only questions of fact with respect to lands under dispute, but he has not been able to point out any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity committed by respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, while passing the aforesaid impugned order as contained in Annexure-6. 4. From the materials available on record this Court finds that there is serious dispute of right, title and possession between the parties with respect to lands under dispute, which cannot be effectively decided in the present proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned revisional order as contained in Annexure-6. 6. In the result, writ petition has to fail and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is observed that once notification under Section 26A of the Act is issued by the State Government with respect to unit in question, then the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for getting their right, title and possession decided in accordance with law.