Smt.Parmila Devi vs The Addl.Member Board Of Reven on 24 March, 2011
Learned counsel next contended that the
applications were heard analogously and by a common
order, the same were dealt with at every stage. He contends
that the said issue is technical in nature and valid/lawful
claim(s) of a party cannot be defeated merely on technical
grounds. Reliance in this regard has been placed on 2004
(1) P.L.J.R 423 (DB) ( Dina Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar)
and 2004 (1) P.L.J.R. 332 (S.J.)
I have considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties. The main issue involved in the case
is whether the land purchased by the writ petitioner is
covered by the provisions contained in Section 16(3) of the
Act. Related issue would be whether petitioner is a landless
lady. If the aforesaid issues are decided in favour of the
petitioner then there is no need to consider and adjudicate
upon the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties regarding maintainability or otherwise of one revision
application having been filed by respondent No. 4 against
common order dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure-2) passed on the
7
two appeals preferred by the writ petitioners.