Patna High Court
Mokendra Kumar @ Makendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 23 January, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.126 of 2021
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.638 of 2018
======================================================
Mokendra Kumar @ Makendra Kumar Son of Late Dallu Yadav, Resident of
Village-Mirganj, Police Station-Sakurabad,, District-Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
3. The Additional District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Jehanabad.
5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jehanabad.
6. The Anchal Adhikari, Jehanabad.
7. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad.
8. The Registrar, District and Sessions Court, Jehanabad.
9. The District Bar Association, Jehanabad through its Secretary, District Bar
Association, Jehanabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate
Mr.Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam (Aag 12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 23-01-2024
The present civil review petition is filed for recalling the
order passed in LPA No. 638 of 2018 arising out of CWJC No.
18672 of 2016 dated 12.12.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out
certain factual error in Para 7 of the LPA order dated 12.12.2019.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.126 of 2021 dt.23-01-2024
The aforementioned alleged error committed by Co-ordinate
Bench is in respect of certain disputed facts. At this stage, we have
noticed what is the relief sought by the petitioner and it was in
respect of disputed issue pertaining to particular land. It is alleged
that petitioner's forefathers were owners of the subject land and it
was occupied by the State Government or its concerned
department and relevant revenue records are being shown as in the
name of Government/concerned department. Faced with these
disputed issues in all fairness learned Single Judge should not have
resorted to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Disputed issues cannot be adjudicated as
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam
Shetty & Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8
SCC 329 read with Rajasthan State Industrial Development &
Investment Corporation & another vs. Diamond & Gem
Development Corporation Ltd. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470.
Therefore, it will go to the root of the matter insofar as
entertaining petitioner's grievance in CWJC No. 18672 of 2016.
Taking note of these facts and circumstances, prima faice, there is
no error apparent on the face of the record so as to interfere with
the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 12.12.2019 passed in LPA No.
638 of 2018.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.126 of 2021 dt.23-01-2024
3. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that
disputed issues are involved in the present lis, therefore, petitioner
is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Trial
Court in initiating suit proceedings and in accordance with law.
4. We make it clear that orders of learned Single Judge
and LPA order dated 12.12.2019 passed in LPA No. 638 of 2018
would not be a hurdle for review petitioner to invoke remedy in
filing civil suit proceedings.
5. Accordingly, the present Civil Review No. 126 of
2021 stands disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
