Sheo Mali Vs. State and ors

Sheo Mali vs State and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Aug 30, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1028415

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1028415
Court: Patna High Court
Decided On: Aug 30, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sheo Mali

Respondent

State and ors

Excerpt

.....justice birendra prasad verma oral judgment date:30. 08-2013 heard the parties. by concurrent finding of facts recorded by the respondent consolidation officer, hilsa, respondent deputy director of consolidation, bihar, patna as also respondent joint director of consolidation, purnia, bihar, in their respective orders as contained in annexure-3, 2 and 1 respectively, claims of the petitioner with respect to the lands under dispute have been rejected. the impugned order passed by the revisional authority is speaking one and has been passed after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter raised by the parties. the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and placing all the materials, yet his claim has been rejected by all the three authorities under the provisions of the bihar consolidation of holdings and prevention of fragmentation act, 1956. for the reasons recorded above, particularly in view of the fact that there has been concurrent finding of facts recorded against the petitioner by all the three authorities, this court does not find any patna high court cwjc no.7039 of 1992 dt.30-08-2013 2/2 good ground to interfere with the impugned orders. in the result, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. no costs. (birendra prasad verma, j) btiwary/-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7039 of 1992 =========================================================== Sheo Mali son of Sohan Mali, resident of village- Amnama, P.O.- Barai, P.S. Islampur, District Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Joint Director Consolidation, Purnea, Bihar.

2. Deputy Director Consolidation (Head-quarter), Patna.

3. Consolidation Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda.

4. Karu Singh son of Jawahar Singh, resident of village- Amnama, Tola- Mushahari, P.O. Barai, P.S. Islampur, District- Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Suhawan Singh For the Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, AC to GA 8 For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Rewati Kant Raman =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT

Date:

30. 08-2013 Heard the parties. By concurrent finding of facts recorded by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Hilsa, respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna as also respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Purnia, Bihar, in their respective orders as contained in Annexure-3, 2 and 1 respectively, claims of the petitioner with respect to the lands under dispute have been rejected. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority is speaking one and has been passed after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter raised by the parties. The petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and placing all the materials, yet his claim has been rejected by all the three authorities under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. For the reasons recorded above, particularly in view of the fact that there has been concurrent finding of facts recorded against the petitioner by all the three authorities, this Court does not find any Patna High Court CWJC No.7039 of 1992 dt.30-08-2013 2/2 good ground to interfere with the impugned orders. In the result, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/-

Same Court & Year Patna · 2013 Same Parties Sheo Mali vs State and ors Same Subject Land Acquisition