Jharkhand High Court
Bagendra Nath Tiwari vs Shamdeo Singh on 26 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 11 of 2020
With
I.A. No. 2119/2020
1. Bagendra Nath Tiwari
2. Vijay Kumar Tiwari
3. Sujit Kumar Tiwari
4. Most. Draupadi Kuer
5. Karuneshwar Nath Tripathi
6. Aruneshwar Nath Tripathi
7. Ramesh Chander Tiwari
8. Ritesh Chandra Tripathi
9. Rinku Tripathi
10. Baby Devi
11. Guriya Kumari
12. Smt. Asha Devi
13. Smt. Pushpa Devi
14. Upendra Nath Tripathy
15. Kalinda Tripathy
16. Dilip Tripathy
17. Omkar Tripathy
18. Raj Kamal Tripathy
19. Most. Shushila Kuer
20. Nil Kamal Tripathy
21. Hridai Tripathy
22. Kamal Kant Tripathy
23. Most. Mamta Kuer
24. Ritu Kumari
25. Sunita Devi
26. Sangita Devi
27. Saraswati Devi
28. Ajay Tiwari
29. Ashis Tiwari
30. Nagwant Tripathi
31. Most. Indu Kuer
32. Arvind Tripathy
33. Asbind Tripathy
34. Smt. Suryamani Devi
35. Smt. Chandrawati Devi ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Shamdeo Singh
2. Prahlad Singh
3. Bhotan Singh
4. Sambhu Nath Singh
5. Sarveshwar Singh
6. Brij Ban Singh
7. Udit Narain Singh
8. Krishna Murari Singh
9. Belwanti Devi ..... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha
For the O.Ps:
-----
07/26.08.2022 The present civil revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
23.03.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in
Title Appeal No. 13/2005 whereby the Court below has declined to hear the
appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC.
I.A. No. 2119/2020 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for
condonation of delay of 2435 days in filing the present civil revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners
had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3379/2013 before this Court
challenging the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2013. The said writ petition,
however, remained pending for considerable period and finally vide order dated
31.01.2020, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court with
liberty to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum. Under the said
circumstance, the delay of 2435 days in filing the present civil revision may be
condoned.
In course of consideration of I.A. No. 2119/2020 filed for condonation of
delay committed in filing the present civil revision, this Court also intends to go
through the impugned judgement dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Principal
District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 13/2005. On perusal of
the said judgment, it appears that the Appellate Court declined to entertain the
appeal on merit on the ground that the same was not maintainable in view of
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,
1894'].
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the
present interlocutory application as well as the contents of the present writ
petition, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 2435 days in filing the
present civil revision. Otherwise also, the petitioners have failed to make out
any case on merit so as to interfere with the impugned judgment dated
23.03.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in
Title Appeal No. 13/2005. Section 54 of the Act, 1894 clearly stipulates that an
appeal against the award or any part of the award of the Reference Court shall
only lie to the High Court and from any decree of the High Court, further appeal
shall lie to the Supreme Court, subject to the provisions contained in Section
110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in Order XLV thereof.
I.A. No. 2119/2020 is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the present civil revision is also dismissed.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
