Patna Court February 2005 Judgments
Ramotar Thakur and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The dispute relates to land of Khata No. 2525 Plot No. 622 measuring 2.1/2 decimal situated in village Dhamdaha. Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 22.9.1999, passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Dhamdaha in case No. 52 of 1999-2000 under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act whereby he has declared the raiyati right of the respondents 4 to 7 over the land in question. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 5.6.2000 passed in Appeal No. 6 of 1999 by which the S.D.O. Dhamdaha has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners on the point of limitation only.3. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsels for the petitioners, respondents 4 to 7 as well as the statements made in the writ application, counter affidavit and reply to the counter affidavit, it transpires that both the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Yadav @ Jhojho Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 9.2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.3.2000/ 6.3.2000 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri in Bataidari Case No. 1A/97 whereby the respondent No. 3 has declared respondent No. 9 as the Bataidar of land appertaining to Khata No. 28 measuring an area of 5 bhiga situated in village Chak Prayag in the district of Khagaria. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 26.5.1999, passed by the Collector, Khagaria in Bataidari Appeal No. 10 of 1998-99 whereby he has remitted the case back to the D.C.L.R. for reconsideration.3. The dispute relates to the land appertaining to Khata No. 28 measuring 5 bigha. This land initially belonged to one Ram Lal Singh and after his death his sons who are respondent No. 2nd set in the writ application came in possession of the land. Claim of the petitioner is that he was inducted as Bat...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Jahri Devi Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard teamed counsel for the parties.2. This application has been filed by a decree holder who under the hands of the State Government is not only harassed but is being crushed and crumbled. The might of the State is denying the right of the citizen.3. The petitioner whose lands were acquired could secure an order in her favour but the State Government did not find it to be palatable, challenged the same in the appeal and after dismissal of the appeal went to the Supreme Court. The first Court passed the order in the year 1996, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court long back and from paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit, it would appear that the SLP could be filed on 17.12.2004 though the First Appeal No. 104 of 1997 was dismissed by this Court on 10.12.2002 and the certified copy of the order was received by the respondents on 16.1.2003.4. The present application came to be filed on 11.10.2004. It appears that after a copy of this application was served upon the...
Tag this Judgment!Tarkeshwar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, the informant.2. The last order dated 27.1.2005 records the fact that petitioner was granted an opportunity to convert this application into one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but that offer was declined. This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the trial Court was under the conspectus of the Code of Criminal Procedure and since petitioner has statutory alternative remedy hence this petition will not be permitted to be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner opted that this petition be confined to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter has been heard thereafter treating his petition to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only.3. On the earlier date this Court was given an impression that the impugned order dated 11.1.2005 co...
Tag this Judgment!Set India Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Rajendra Prasad, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including the order dated 6.9.2002 passed in complaint case No. 855 (C) of 2002 whereunder the learned cognizance taking Court took cognizance under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and as many as five other co accused named in the complaint petition.2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in this application are accused Nos. 6 and 7 in the complaint petition.3. SET India Private Limited through N.P. Singh, Chief Financial Officer, 23, Shah Industrial Estate Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner No. 1') and Kunal Dasgupta son of Manoranjan Dasgupta, CEO, SET India Pvt Ltd., 23, Shah Industrial Estate, Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner No. 2') are mentioned as accused Nos. 6 and 7 in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›