Court : Patna
Decided on : Nov-14-2005
1. heard mr. gajendra pratap singh, counsel for the petitioner and mr. bipin kumar, counsel representing the private contesting respondent no. 3. mr. mahesh prasad, government pleader-2 is also present but since the matter arises out from the mutation proceeding, the state has no interest in this case.2. the learned single judge declined to go into the merits of the case of the writ petitioner-appellant on the sole ground that he came to this court after inordinate and unexplained delay. on hearing counsel for the parties, we find that the position is not so and the delay can be explained. moreover, as would appear from the following facts the petitioner has been rendered remedyless and it is, therefore, just and reasonable that his case should receive due consideration by the statutory authority.3. the rights, title and the interests in the disputed plot was earlier decided in the year 1960 in favour of the petitioner in a title suit before the civil court. he, however, makes the grievance in the year 1992, the circle officer allowed an application for mutation filed by respondent no. 3 and mutated the disputed plot in her name. against the order passed by the circle officer, the petitioner came to this court in cwjc no. 4012/1995. that writ petition was partly allowed by order dated 1.2.1996 and the matter was remitted to the circle officer. on remand the circle officer passed the order, dated 3.6.1996, reiterating his earlier direction. the petitioner challenged the order .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Jul-07-2005
c.m. prasad, j. 1. the petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (in short, referred to as 'the code') with a prayer to quash the first information report of chapra town p.s. case no. 1 of 2004 dated 2nd january 2004 which was instituted for offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120b of the indian penal code against the petitioner and six others. the complainant-informant birendra prasad filed complaint case no. 1767 of 2003 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and six others and the complaint petition was sent by the learned chief judicial magistrate, chapra to police for institution of fir and, accordingly, the fir has been instituted and the police is conducting investigation into the case.2. the allegation as levelled by the complainant/informant in the said complaint petition is that one of the accused jitendra prasad (who is not petitioner), the husband of the petitioner sharda devi has filed title suit no. 66 of 2003 against the complainant/informant (o.p. no. 2) and the executive officer of municipality, chapra in the. court of munsif-l, chapra and he (the complainant) received summons in that suit. it was further alleged that on receiving summons the complainant appeared in that suit and on verification of the record through his counsel, he learnt that accused jitendra prasad has filed in that suit photo copy of a forged will dated 1st june 1988 executed by kishori devi wife of late jagannath .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Jul-28-2005
sudhir kumar katriar, j. 1. the defendants first set (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') are the appellants against a judgment of affirmance. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-3-2003, passed by learned vth additional district judge, patna, in title appeal no. 45 of 1999/ 5 of 2001 (dilip gupta and anr. v. debashish palit and ors.), whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants (the appellants herein), and has upheld the judgment and decree dated 29-5-1999, passed by the learned subordinate judge-viii, patna, in title suit no. 61 of 1986 (debashish palit and ors. v. dilip gupta and anr). the learned trial court had decreed the suit and ordered for ejectment of the defendants from the suit property, and for khas possession of the plaintiffs. we shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.2. first the background of the present suit. late t.c. palit, the ancestor of the plaintiffs (respondent first set herein), had executed a temporary lease deed in favour of late s.n. gupta, father of the defendants, on 25-8-1946 (ext. 4), with respect to 15 kathas and 8 dhurs of land in the township of patna for a period of 29 years at a monthly rental of rs. 205/- with the right of renewal to the lessee for a further period of ten years on the terms and conditions stated in the lease deed. s.n. gupta was put in possession of the lease-hold land on 1-1-1947. during the currency of the lease, the lessor had to file .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Feb-03-2005
m.l. visa, j. 1. both these appeals arising out of the same judgment and order dated 9-5-2001 passed by 5th additional sessions judge. begusarai, in sessions trial no. 53/99 convicting and sentencing both the appellants to undergo r. i. for life under section 302/34 of the indian penal code (in short ipc) and to undergo r. i. for life under section 27 of arms act but ordering both the sentences to run concurrently are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. the case of prosecution briefly stated is that on 27-6-1998 informant sadhu sharan paswari (pw-10), the then chaukidar of bit no. 10/4 was on duty at the house of shailendra kunwar (pw-9) situate at village kunwar toil, p. s. karpura, district-begusarai, where he was deputed after the murder of pankaj kunwar son of shailendra kunwar in the month of april. on that day in the night when informant was making preparation for going to bed at about 12.30 o' clock in the night he found 5-6 persons flashing torch light coming from south direction and when they came at a distance of 50-60 yards from informant; they hurried towards him and when he inquired who they were, one of them asked his companions to eaten hold of informant and his voice to informant appeared to be of appellant yogi choudhary. out of fear, informant ran towards west in the house of gango pandit (not examined) and fell down. after some time, he heard sounds of firing from the roof of the house of shailendra kunwar where bhagwati devi, mother of shailendra .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Mar-03-2005
v.n. sinha, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the state and private respondents.2. the petitioner who is the pramukh of chandan panchayat samiti has filed this writ application assailing the requisition, signed by 10 elected members of the panchayat samiti served on him under letter no. 741, dated 24.11.2003 of the block development officer, chandan, annexure-2 as also the resolution of the chandan panchayat samiti dated 18.12.2003, annexure-4, passed on the basis of the said requisition removing him from the office of the pramukh, chandan panchayat samiti by a majority of 10 votes. the ground of challenge raised against the requisition served on the petitioner under letter dated 24.11.2003. annexure-2 is that the same was signed by only 10 elected members of the panchayat samiti which is violative of sub-section (3) of section 44 of the bihar panchayati raj act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') which requires at least 1/3rd of the total number of the members of the panchayat samiti to requisition a special meeting of the panchayat samiti to consider the removal of the pramukh. he has further assailed the said requisition on the ground that the same is violative of sub-section (7) of section 42 of the act as the requisition does not contain the specific charges which have been alleged, against him. he has questioned the resolution dated 18.12.2003. annexure-4 on the ground that the same is violative of sub-section (3) of section 42 of the act .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Nov-25-2005
1. this reference is necessitated on account of the observations made by the learned single judge in cwjc. no. 15551 of 2001, recorded on 19.3.2002, in a petition under article 226 of the constitution of india questioning the proceedings recorded in minapur panchayat, on 26.11.2001, relating to the consideration of 'no confidence motion' initiated against the then pramukh and the then up-pramukh. the learned single judge in an elaborate reasoned judgment while concluding passed the following observations in the penultimate paragraph and the last paragraph of the said judgment.let the matter be placed before my lord, the chief justice for issuing proper directions to place the matter before a larger bench. the division bench may also like to issue instructions/directions to the state government to issue instructions or to frame rules in relation to form, submission and consideration of no confidence motion, specially that if pramukh himself fixes the date of such meeting to consider the no confidence motion, he shall be obliged to fix the meeting giving a clear margin of seven days between the date of issuance of notice and the date of the meeting so also to give the details of no confidence motion and nature of allegations if made against the parmukh or up-pramukh or annexing copy of no confidence motion with the notice enabling all concerned to know that what are the allegations and what is to be faced by the pramukh or up-pramukh, and, in a case where a date is fixed by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : May-13-2005
s. nayer hussain, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the petitioners are plaintiffs of title suit no. 479 of 1993 which they had filed for partition of their moiety share purchased from opposite party no. 2 who admittedly had half share in the suit property whereas the other half share belonged to opposite party no. 13. the petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 15.12.2000 passed in the aforesaid suit at the stage of preparation of final decree by which the petition filed by opposite party no. 1 under section 4 of the partition act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for the sake of brevity) was allowed and opposite party no. 1 was held to entitled to purchase the said portion from of plaintiffs.4. the short fact of this case is that opposite party no. 1 is the son whereas opposite party no. 2 is another and both of them jointly purchased the entire suit property from the original owner by a registered sale deed dated 12.8.1955, thereafter, one hazari sao (father of opposite party no. 1 and husband of opposite party no. 2) filed title suit no. 111 of 1982 for declaration that opposite party no. 2 had no title in the suit property as she was merely a benamidar and in fact he (hazari sao) purchased the suit property alongwith opposite party no. 1. the said suit was dismissed on 3.7.1984 by the learned trial court declaring the title of opposite party nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of the said purchase. the said decree was challenged by late hazari sao in title .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Oct-24-2005
1. in this criminal writ 'habeas corpus' petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, petitioner, madan kumar jha, a school teacher, has sought for a direction of this court for production of his three minor daughters from the custody of respondent no. 3, shankar thakur alias babloo thakur on the premises that his legally wedded wife, veena devi, is staying with respondent no. 3, and his children are with them.2. it is the allegation that these three minor female children of the petitioner, allegedly, are in unlawful detention of respondent no. 3. following aspects, which have material bearing and relevance on the merits of the issue involved and are virtually not in controversy, may be highlighted at the outset:-(a) the petitioner is the husband of smt. veena devi and out of their wedlock three minor girls have been procreated;(b) wife of the petitioner, veena devi, is alleged to be living in adultery with respondent no. 3. though such a serious allegation is there, but, she has not been impleaded as a party to this writ petition for the reasons not known to us;(c) the petitioner-husband is a teacher, who is teaching the school boys and has the role of shaping the future of india by teaching the future generations;(d) the husband-petitioner moved the concerned court, unsuccessfully, by invoking the provisions of section 98 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, cr pc, for the custody of the minor daughters on the premises that they are in illegal detention of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Aug-19-2005
s.k. katriar, j.1. heard mr. samrendra pratap singh for petitioner, mr. manoj kumar jha, learned jc to standing counsel no. i for respondent nos. 1 to 4 (state of bihar and its functionaries), mr. umakant singh for respondent no. 5 (managing director, bihar state small industries corporation), mr. madan mohan for respondent nos. 6 to 9, and mr. chittaranjan sinha for respondent no. 10 (m/s. paras febritek through its own kanti kumar). this writ petition is directed against the order bearing letter no. 1091-d, dated 16.10.2001 (annexure-3), issued by the patna industrial area development authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the authority'), whereby the lease-hold rights in favour of the petitioner with respect to the industrial plot in question situate in the township of patna has been cancelled on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. it is further directed against order bearing memo no. 34-d, dated 7.1.2003 (annexure-f), whereby the said industrial plot has been allotted in favour of respondent no. 10.2. according to the writ petition, respondent no. 5 (bihar state small industries corporation) had executed a lease deed on 1.6.1973 (annexure-1), assigning lease-hold rights with respect to the industrial plot in question in favour of the petitioner for industrial purposes and on the terms and conditions detailed in the lease deed. possession of the same was made over to the petitioner on 2.6.1973. the petitioner unit came in production on 1.12 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Mar-21-2005
s.n. hussain, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. petitioners are defendants of eviction suit no. 31 of 1989 which was filed by op no. 1, namely, smt. mataraj rajeshwary bhagwati devi, the deity of the temple at baridaulatpur, jamalpur, through its sebait gorelal mishra for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of default in payment of rent by the said defendants.3. the petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 6.11.1998 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned munsif, 1st, munger, allowed the petition of opposite party numbers 2 to 4 for their substitution in place of gorelal mishra and for setting aside abatement due to the delay in filing of the substitution petition.4. the short fact of this case that earlier gorelal mishra filed title suit no. 82 of 1971 for declaration of his title over the suit properties. the said suit was dismissed by the learned sub-judge, ii, munger, on 4.3.1982 which was challenged by him in title appeal no. 10 of 1982 which was also dismissed on 16.2.1985.5. it appears that thereafter gorelal mishra re-conciled to the fact that he was only a sebait of the deity which was owner of the suit property, and filed the aforesaid eviction suit no. 31 of 1989 in the court of munsif-i, munger, for eviction of the defendants-petitioners. it may be made clear that the plaintiff of the eviction suit was smt. mataraj rajeshwary bhagwati devi, the deity through its sebait gorelal mishra.6. it is an admitted fact that gorelal mishra died .....Tag this Judgment!