Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Narain Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 19 August, 1972

Gopali Mandal vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 4 May, 2005

13. It appears that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Ram Narain Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) was not noticed much less considered in these two judgments. It is the settled law that when subsequent decision does not show consideration of the law laid down by the earlier decision, then the subsequent decision is per incurium. That apart, in these two judgments, the learned Judges proceeded on the assumption that the order was passed under sub-section (10) of Section 48E of the Act, and came to conclusion that no appeal would lie. As stated above, no final order is passed under sub-section (10) and after withdrawal of the case the final order is passed under sub-section (8) of Section 48E of the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tarini Mandal vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 10 February, 2005

A local enquiry was also made by the D.C.L.R. and subsequently by order dated 4.6.1997 claim of the petitioners as bataidar was allowed. Against this order respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal vide Revenue Appeal No. 24 of 1997, 98. The maintainability of this appeal was challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the appeal under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act lies only against the order passed under Sub-section (7) or Sub-section (8) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. However, relying upon the decision in the case of Ram Narain Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1973 BLJR 662, the appeal was held maintainable. The Addl. Collector did not even discussed the case on merit and by order dated 16.11.1999 the appeal was allowed. This, order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ application.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Mishra - Full Document

Naresh Jha @ Gunanath Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 29 March, 2023

It was pointed out in the aforesaid Ram Narain Singh's case in connection with Sub-section (1) of Section 48 E that, no doubt, the legislature has used the word 'may' which is generally understood as enabling and not mandatory, but 'when the power conferred by the statute is coupled with the duty of the person to whom it is given to exercise it, then even - though the word 'may' is used, it has to be construed as imperative'.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 34 - P Sarthy - Full Document

Sk. Hijju @ Md. Hifzur Rahman & Ors vs Awadh Lal Sharma & Ors on 17 May, 2016

In view of Section 48F(4), an order passed by the authority under the provision of 48E, the same question cannot be looked into by the civil court as sub-clause 4 specifically excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court. In that view of the matter, the direction of the appellate court to relegate the matter is completely barred but at the same time provides if a suit is instituted challenges the order passed under Section 48E or on appeal under Section 48F, Civil Court will not have power during the pendency of the suit, to stay the enforcement of such order. The mechanism provided under Section 48E has come for consideration on different occasions side by side the power of the civil court to entertain and pass order with respect to right of under raiyat in the case of Ram Narain Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 Patna 275. In that case, the vires of the provision of 48E was challenged. It was claimed that the Patna High Court MA No.324 of 2013 dt.17-05-2016 18 provisions of 48E are discriminatory, arbitrary does not conform to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India claiming that provisions of BT Act leaves unfettered discretion to the Collector in the matter of initiating a proceeding against the landlords without laying down any guideline for initiation of proceeding, as in identical circumstances, the Collector may initiate proceeding against the landlord, it may not be started against the other landlord, in that circumstances, and the civil suit may be filed against him by the under-raiyat It was submitted that the provision of Section 48E does not completely take away the power of under-raiyat to institute a suit before the civil court.. It was argued that if there is a dispute of landlord and under-raiyat, the under-raiyat will have a discretion of either he may approach to the authority under Section 48E or he can go to the civil court. In such situation, the tenant will have certain advantage against land lord. In alternative, it was argued that the provision of Section 48E is in the nature of supplementary not a substitutive and merely provides for an additional remedy to the under raiyat. One under-raiyat may file an application before the Collector for institution of the proceeding, the other may institute a suit for the same issue before the civil court. The court has given an answer that on plain construction of provision of sub-section 48E(1) except for express provision in the Act, the civil and criminal court shall have no Patna High Court MA No.324 of 2013 dt.17-05-2016 19 jurisdiction over the subject matter of dispute in proceedings. In the other word, it expressly barred the institution of civil suit in respect of property which is subject matter of dispute in 48E proceeding. If the intention of the Legislature would have been to make sub-section (13) applicable to pending procedure, it would have specifically stated in the section that civil or criminal court shall cease to have jurisdiction in pending proceedings over subject-matter of a dispute in respect whereof a proceeding under sub-section (1) is initiated. Provisions of a statute are ordinarily to be given a plain meaning and words thereof are to be given exceptional construction only in certain limited circumstances. In this regard, the Court has held as follows:-
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Md.Mahfooz Alam vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 July, 2017

It was pointed out in the aforesaid Ram Narain Singh's case (supra) in connection with sub section (1) of Section Patna High Court CWJC No.8348 of 2008 dt. 18-07-2017 8/16 48E, that, no doubt, the legislature has used the word "may" which is generally understood as enabling and not mandatory, but "when the power conferred by the statute coupled with the duty of the person to whom it is given to exercise it, then even though the word "may" it used, it has to be construed as imperative".
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - H K Srivastava - Full Document

Kamleshwari Mandal And Ors. vs Balgovind Thakur And Ors. on 13 January, 1984

His second contention was that the Deputy Collector was not obliged to repeat the exercise of an amicable settlement which had been already attempted to by the Bataidari Board and failed. He also challenged the correctness of the decisions taking a view against him by a Bench of this Court in the case of Rasik Lal Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1979 B.L.J.R. 20 to which I was also a party--a case directly in point against this contention; as well as another Bench decision in Ram Narain Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. .
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1