Binda Devi v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. 02-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for petitioners and State. None appeared on behalf of private respondent i.e. respondent no. 6, in whose favour, basgit purcha was issued. In the present writ petition, petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Collector, Darbhanga under Section 21…
Judgment
.... .... Respondents. ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha Mr. Rajib Ranjan Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. (PAAG) Mr. Ugranath Mallick ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
02-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for petitioners and State. None appeared on behalf of private respondent i.e. respondent no. 6, in whose favour, basgit purcha was issued. In the present writ petition, petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Collector, Darbhanga under Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.14587 of 2005 (10) dt.02-04-2013 Tenancy Act, 1947. During the pendency of the writ petition, an appropriate forum as ‘Land Tribunal’ has already been constituted and functioning for adjudication of such dispute under the provisions of Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that matter can be referred to the Land Tribunal for its proper adjudication. In view of provision contained in Section 15 of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009, the Registry is directed to transmit the record to the Tribunal forthwith. Anay (Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Tenancy Act, 1947; Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 — s. 15.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 02 Apr 2013. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR.
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.