Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: patna Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 53 results (0.052 seconds)

Jan 10 2003 (HC)

Ghanshyam Mandal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jan-10-2003

aftab alam, j. 1. this writ petition arises from a mutation proceeding and the lands in dispute are 2.7411 acres, appertaining to a number of plots under deferent khatas (fully described in para 4 of the writ petition), situate in village barajore, tola chamaridih (dhobipur), ps, jhajha in the district of jamui. the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 9-12-1999 passed by the add!. collector, jamui in mutation revision case no. 43 of 1997-98. by the impugned order, the revision filed by respondent no. 6 was allowed the orders passed in favour of the petitioner by the deputy collector land reforms (the appellate authority) and the circle officer (the original authority) were set aside and the disputed lands were directed to be recorded in the name of respondent no. 6.2. at first there appeared to be more than one reasons to allow the writ petition and to set aside the impugned order. first, the revision was filed before the addl. collector more than ten years after the order, sought to be revised was passed by the appellate authority. secondly, after the order was passed by the dy. collector land reforms, at the appellate stage, respondent no. 6 had filed a suit being t.s. no. 18 of 1986 with regard to the same disputed lands which was allowed to be dismissed for default by order, dated 30-11-1990. thirdly, in passing the impugned order the addl. collector had cfearly adverted to the issue of title to the disputed lands, rather, than possession which may the only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2003 (HC)

Swarnamoyee Singh and ors. Vs. Nomita Singh and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-01-2003

r.n. prasad, j. 1. the letters patent appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1-2-1994 passed in c.w.j.c. no. 2866/83. 2. the relevant facts of the case are that one kali prasad singh had three sons, namely, benga lal singh, jai govind singh and atul chandra singh. there was a partition amongst the brothers by registered deed and benga lal singh got 21.98 acres of land. he had four sons, namely, shyama pado singh, shanti pado singh, barin kumar singh and asim kumar singh. shyama pado singh died during the pendency of writ petition leaving behind his widow namita singh, two sons, namely, dilip kumar singh and vidyut kumar singh and three daughters, namely, shivani rai, bansani singh and indrani singh. for better appreciation of the facts genealogical table is given here-in-blew:- kali prasad singh (jagirholder) | __________________________|________________________________ | | | | baga lal singh jai govind singh atual chandra singh (jagirholder) | ____|_______________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | shyama pado shanti pado barin kumar asim kumar singh singh singh singh | | | | namita singh (widow) | ________|________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | | dilip kumar bidyut kumar shivani roy benami indrani singh singh singh singh 3. benga lal singh was appointed sardar and he was given 36.06 acres as sardari jagir in lieu of service rendered to the land-lord. he was in possession of the said land .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2003 (HC)

Gautam Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Feb-21-2003

r.s. garg, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the state and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.2. the petitioner after purchasing certain properties made an application on 8-3-2000 in accordance with section 186 of bihar and orissa municipal act, 1922 giving a notice to the municipality that he proposes to raise construction in accordance with the map and the plan. as any objection or rejection was not communicated to the petitioner, presuming a deemed sanction under the provisions of section 188(3) of the act the petitioner started raising construction. after the petitioner raised construction the authorities came out of slumber and started raising objections, one such objection communicated to the petitioner is contained in annexure-3 letter no. 384 dated 8-5-2000. the petitioner was informed that without getting the map/plans sanctioned he was raising construction and alongwith his map he did not submit the application for mutation and the document which he had annexed with his application/ notice was a receipt issued by the circle officer in favour of the seller. the petitioner was required to stop the construction immediately. on 22-5-2000 vide annexure-3-a the special officer, lakhisarai municipality issued a notice to the station house officer, police station, lakhisarai that despite notices to the petitioner he was not staying the construction, therefore, proper action be taken against the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2003 (HC)

Saket Housing Ltd. Vs. the Patna Regional Development Authority and an ...

Court : Patna

Decided on : Nov-25-2003

b.n.p. singh, j. 1. scarce land and rising population, which made housing problem complex for teeming millions, aspiring to seek shelter in urban areas, has given rise to a new dimension to solution of this problem, known as housing complex or multi-storeyed apartments. paradox is that even though builders/ developers of such complexes may not have their own land for construction of complexes, yet they develop land, erect multi-storeyed buildings thereon and claim ownership thereof.2. m/s. saket housing ltd. through its managing director, the appellant, having lost cwjc no. 7904 of 2002 before a bench of this court, has now chosen this forum for appeal, filing lpa no. 902 of 2003. since manifold contentions were raised at bar on behalf of the appellant and the respondents, salient features of the case of the parties can be noticed to appreciate them.3. since learned single judge in his judgment has set out in elaborate details all the relevant facts pertaining to reason and subsequent development of the case, it is not necessary for us to recapitulate in the judgment all these materials in full. however, we shall refer to certain salients features emerging from the pleadings of the parties and submissions made. put up briefly the essential facts are these. on being approached by appellant company, for construction of multi storeyed building, commercial and residential, on municipal plot no. 156 under ward no. 2, circle no. 6, holding no. 128/95 in patna, the respondent patna .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2003 (HC)

Sarwar Alam Vs. Jawahar Turha and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Sep-10-2003

p.k. deb, j. 1. this appeal has been preferred by the above named plaintiff/ appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd sub-judge, buxar in title appeal no. 100 of 1977 whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree passed by the second additional munsif, buxar in title suit no. 97/31 of 1971 -76 has been reversed and the plaintiff's suit has been held to be not maintainable. 2. the suit house plot no. 1049 and 1050 having measured 16 dhurs and 16 decimals and 10 dhurs and odd respectively have been claimed by the plaintiff and declaration has been sought regarding her title and also for confirmation of possession and alternatively for recovery of possession. admittedly the suit property belonged to one abdul hakim alias bordhu mian and abdul hamid alias sahtu mian sons of ghafoor mian of dumraon, town and soon after partition of the country went to pakistan in the year 1949 and the said property became evacuee property and it came in possession of the custodian. the said property was auction sold and one banarsi das purchased the same on 25-8-1969 and received sale certificate dated 11-5-1970. the said banarsi dassold the disputed property to the plaintiff i.e. the appellant on 14-5-1970 for a consideration of rs. 800/-. according to the plaintiff on the basis of that sale deed, he came in possession and he has been coming in possession of the same upto the date of the filing of the suit. his name was mutated in the municipal office but the father of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2003 (HC)

Smt. Phul Kumari Tripathi Vs. Smt. Bina Devi @ Saraswati Devi

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jul-21-2003

s.k. katriar, j. 1. the plaintiff is the appellant against a judgment of affirmance. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-3-2002, passed by learned additional district judge ii, patna, in title appeal no. 21 of 1994 (smt. phul kumari tripathi v. smt. veena devi @ saraswati devi), whereby he has dismissed the plaintiffs appeal, and has upheld the judgment and decree dated 21-1-1994, passed by learned 2nd munsif, patna, in title suit no. 841 of 1988 (smt. phul kumari tripathi v. veena devi @ saraswati devi), whereby the suit had been dismissed. hence this appeal at the instance of the plaintiff. we shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.2. the facts lie in a narrow compass, and are almost admitted except some details which are inconsequential for the disposal of this appeal. according to the plaint, cs plot no. 506, appertaining to khata no. 39, situate in the locality of rajapur in the township of patna, originally belonged to vijay kumar singh, out of which he sold two and a half kathas each in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant by separate registered deeds of absolute sale dated 24-1 -69. there was and continues to be a 16 feet wide municipal road on the southern side of the two plots. there were either vacant plots or constructed houses on remaining three boundaries of the two plots. in view of the measurement of the plots with long length and short breadh, each side having 28'3' (approx.) in width and 120 feet .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2003 (HC)

Prabhu Nath Sah @ Prabhu Nath Prasad and ors. Vs. Siya Ram Sah and anr ...

Court : Patna

Decided on : Sep-22-2003

p.k. deb, j. 1. this appeal has been preferred by the defendants of title suit no. 86 of 1973 against the judgment and decree passed by the munsif, east court, sitamarhi, in the abovementioned title suit and also being confirmed by the 1st additional district judge, sitamarhi, in title appeal no. 7/23 of 1985/88. 2. the suit was a simple suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of a mahadanama dated 18-3-1973 which was an unregistered one being executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the original plaintiff ram chandra prasad. they were brothers. it is the case of the plaintiff that as the defendant no. 1 his brother became indebted for payment on the basis of a hand note and on other expenses for treatment towards ailment, he made a proposal to sell the suit land to the original plaintiff for a sum of rs. 3,500/- out of which payments have been made towards the consideration amount from the side of the plaintiff rs. 2,041/- and it was promised that on payment of balance amount the sale-deed would be executed in favour of the plaintiff. but when the plaintiff made a demand for execution of the sale-deed in his favour by taking balance amount then it could be found that the defendant-lst set has surreptitiously sold the lands to defendants-2nd set who are the appellants in the case. it is the case of the plaintiff that such sale-deed is without any consideration and a transaction as the defendants-2nd set were in full knowledge of the mahadanama being executed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2003 (HC)

Jaleshwari Devi and ors. Vs. Deorani Devi and ors.,

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jul-28-2003

p.k. deb, j.1. all the appeals have been heard analogous as they arise out of the same judgment and between the same parties.2. first appeal no. 60/79 has been preferred by defendant no. 1 of partition suit no. 7/74 while first appeal nos. 101/83 and 102/83 arise out of the eviction suit filed by the same defendant no. 1 laxman sharma against plaintiffs of partition suit no. 7/74 and against sarjug sharma who was also a defendant being defendant no. 4 in partition suit no. 7/74 and a son of laxman sharma by his first wife. first appeal no. 269/83 has been preferred by the same laxman sharma against the final decree being passed in partition suit no. 7/74. first appeal nos. 101/83 and 102/83 were practically filed before the district judge corresponding to the valuation of the appeals but as they relate to same dispute between the parties of first appeal no. 60/79 and that of first appeal no. 269/83 and also covered by the same judgment, those two appeals have also been called for from the court of district judge, muzaffarpur, and were heard analogous. it should be mentioned here that in partition suit no. 7/74 decree has been granted for partition specifying the shares of the parties, although, to some extent in a confusing manner and in title suit no. 195/73 and title suit no. 196/73 which were pure and simple eviction suits had been dismissed by the same judgment which was passed on 30th september, 1978 holding that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2003 (HC)

Deepnarayan Choudhary and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-01-2003

r.s. garg, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. despite opportunities neither the collector, nor the municipality have filed their counters. their right to file the counter is closed. 3. the complaint of the petitioners simply is that in pursuance of the notice published in the local newspaper the petitioners and likes made application for allotment of the shops after observing the rules of the advertisement the shops were allotted in favour of the petitioners but thereafter the collector for the reasons best known to him simply observed that transparent procedure was not followed in making the allotments, therefore, the allotments should be cancelled. taking the observations of the collector to be a mandatory nature without application of mind or without looking into what was required to be done and even without issuing any notice to show-cause the municipality like a humble slave of the district magistrate cancelled the allotments. 4. the counsel for the municipality submits that as they had simply observed the orders passed by the district magistrate they are not required to say anything beyond and the collector should be put to terms to explain his order. as already observed the district magistrate has not chosen to file his counter or justify his action. 5. the order passed by the collector is at annexure-6, it simply reads that who had taken part in the meetings dated 11-11-2001 and 28-1-2002 and what particular decisions were taken was not known. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2003 (HC)

Arun Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Nov-20-2003

chandramauli kr. prasad, j.1. this application has been filed for quashing the notice dated 20-6-2003 issued by the executive officer of the panchayat samitee, kutumba whereby a meeting of the panchayat samitee was convened on 26-6-2003 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. 2. short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was elected as member of the panchayat samittee, kutumba (hereinafter referred to as the samitee) and subsequently elected as its parmukh. certain members of the samitee wrote to the petitioner to convene a special meeting, to consider the no confidence motion. a copy of the said requisition was also sent to the block development officer, kutumba who happens to be the executive officer of the samitee. he in turn wrote to the petitioner to convene a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion. ultimately the executive officer, gave notice (annexure-9) of the special meeting to be held on 26-6-2003 to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner. said notice was given on 20-6-2003. in this application prayer of the petitioner is to quash this notice.3. it is relevant to state in the writ application petitioner has stated that he was elected as parmukh on 18-6-2001 and within a period of two years requisition was made to consider the motion of no confidence which is in the teeth of the decision of the division bench of this court dated 6-5-2002 passed in the case of smt. shyama devi v. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //