The Patna High Court, while dismissing an appeal filed against the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, held that disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution necessarily when evidence is required to prove the claim.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondent State officials to take action on his application to ensure entry of Khata and Khesra of his khatiyani land in the record of Jamabandi. When the petitioner came to know that no action had been taken on his application noted hereinabove, he preferred another petition. The writ petition, however, was finally withdrawn by the petitioner with the liberty to pursue the matter. The aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order under appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the relief sought in the writ petition was misunderstood by the learned Single Judge while observing that the authority is not empowered to enter the number of khata and khesra in the existing jamabandi, unless a petition is filed for mutation of the plots in the name of the petitioner. He argued that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the land in question has been continuing in the name of the petitioner’s grandfather.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that no disclosure of ownership of the land in question was made, either in the writ petition or before this Court. The claim of the writ petitioner was based only upon possession. The petitioner was pursuing his remedy before the DCLR. However, he withdrew his case from there and filed a writ petition before this Court which also came to be withdrawn by him.
The Court observed that disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution necessarily when evidences are required to prove the claim. The Court further said that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition for identical relief which came to be withdrawn with a liberty to pursue his remedy before the DCLR and for the same cause of action subsequently another petition has been filed, which is not permissible.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there is no merit in the appeal.
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar vs The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice K. Vinod Charan and Hon’ble Justice Harish Kumar
Case no.: Letters Patent Appeal No.1325 of 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Kumar Praveen
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
