Yogendra Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Yogendra vs State of Bihar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Apr 17, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/128865

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/128865
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: B.N. Agrawal, J.
Decided On: Apr 17, 1997
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 12234 of 1995
Subject: ;Property

Case Summary

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

Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, Section 11 - Provision of--Show that only appeal is maintainable and there is no provision for revision--Thus, order treating second appeal as revision and direction for deciding on merits--Liable to be quashed. - - The Act shows that there is no provision for revision aga...

Key legal issue: ;Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Yogendra

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Excerpt

bihar public land encroachment act, 1956, section 11 - provision of--show that only appeal is maintainable and there is no provision for revision--thus, order treating second appeal as revision and direction for deciding on merits--liable to be quashed. - - the act shows that there is no provision for revision against the appellate order, therefore, i am clearly of the view that the divisional commissioner was not justified in treating the appeal as revision and directing the same to be disposed of on merit......in favour of the petitioner. the said order was assailed in appeal before the district collector, who by his order dated 8.11.1993, contained in annexure 9, dismissed the appeal, against the said order passed by the district collector further appeal was preferred before the divisional commissioner, bhagalpur, in which the petitioner took an objection that the same was not maintainable. the divisional commissioner in the impugned order has held that against the said order a revision was maintainable and consequently, he has directed that the appeal should be treated as a revision.4. from bare perusal of the provisions of section 11 of the bihar public land encroachment act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'act'), it would appear that there is a provision of only one appeal and no second appeal does lie against the appellate order. the act shows that there is no provision for revision against the appellate order, therefore, i am clearly of the view that the divisional commissioner was not justified in treating the appeal as revision and directing the same to be disposed of on merit.5. accordingly, this application is allowed, order contained in annexure 1 is hereby quashed and case no. 15 of 1993-94 filed by respondent no. 8, suresh prasad singh before the divisional commissioner is dismissed as not maintainable.6. this writ application is, thus, disposed of.

Full Judgment

B.N. Agrawal, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This application has been filed for quashing order dated 6.11.95, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur in land Encroachment Appeal No. 15 of 1993-94, contained in annexure-1, whereby objection of the petitioner in relation to maintainability of the appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner has been rejected and it has been held that a revision was maintainable before the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the original authority.

3. Undisputedly, in the present case, the original authority was Ahchaladhikari and it passed a final order in the land encroachment proceeding in favour of the petitioner. The said order was assailed in appeal before the District Collector, who by his order dated 8.11.1993, contained in annexure 9, dismissed the appeal, against the said order passed by the District Collector further appeal was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, in which the petitioner took an objection that the same was not maintainable. The Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order has held that against the said order a revision was maintainable and consequently, he has directed that the appeal should be treated as a revision.

4. From bare perusal of the provisions of Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Act'), it would appear that there is a provision of only one appeal and no second appeal does lie against the appellate order. The Act shows that there is no provision for revision against the appellate order, therefore, I am clearly of the view that the Divisional Commissioner was not justified in treating the appeal as revision and directing the same to be disposed of on merit.

5. Accordingly, this application is allowed, order contained in annexure 1 is hereby quashed and case No. 15 of 1993-94 filed by respondent No. 8, Suresh Prasad Singh before the Divisional Commissioner is dismissed as not maintainable.

6. This writ application is, thus, disposed of.

Same Court & Year Patna · 1997 Same Parties Yogendra vs State of Bihar and ors. Same Subject ;Property Same Judge B.N. Agrawal, J.

;Property In relation to final order public land Has been in re