Girija Devi v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
Provisions considered
Judgment
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Ram Das Singh, A.C. to S.C. 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 8 05-08-2013 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.C. to S.C. 12 appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. However, despite valid service of notice, none is appearing on behalf of the substituted heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 19.2.1992 (Annexure-5) passed in Homestead Parcha Case No. 7 of 1990 by the respondent Circle Officer, Tariyani, in the district of Sheohar as also consequential Parcha, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Admittedly, against the impugned order, the petitioner has got alternative statutory remedy under Section 21 of Patna High Court CWJC No.2182 of 2005 (8) dt.05-08-2013 2 the Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (in short Act), but the petitioner without exhausting the aforesaid alternative statutory remedy has rushed to this Court in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the considered opinion that issues of fact must be conclusively decided by the statutory authorities under the law and only thereafter the aggrieved person should approach this court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent District Collector, Sheohar, in a proceeding under Section 21 of the Act for an appropriate relief admissible to her under law. However, if any petition is filed by the petitioner before the respondent District Collector, Sheohar, the same may be heard and decided strictly in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the heirs and legal representatives of the original homestead parcha holder. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) sudip/-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.