Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Ramzan Mian And Ors. vs Executive Engineer, P.W.D. And Ors. on 1 April, 1969

Surya Narain Choudhary vs Darbhanga District Board on 1 July, 1977

In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court in Ramzan Mian's Case (supra) held that Section 6 of the Act was violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, it was void. I have already pointed out that the Court of appeal below basing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of this Court has held the suit to be maintainable. If the position had remained at that, there was no occasion to interfere with the judgment of the Court of appeal below.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N P Singh - Full Document

Lakhan Singh vs Kishun Singh And Ors. on 20 August, 1969

5. The third contention of Mr. Pandey is that Section 547 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is ultra vires of the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution, and for this purpose he wants to rely on the case of Ramzan Mian v. Executive Engineer, P. W. D., Dehri on Sone, 1969 Pat LJR 241. That was a case concerning some provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. After a discussion of the various provisions, their Lordships observed that Section 5 of the Act which empowers the Collector to pass an order for removal of the encroachment on the public land, as defined in Section 2 (3) of that Act, is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. That case was decided on altogether different facts. There it was held that a discrimination had been made concerning the procedure according to which citizen can be removed from his land and this was prejudicial to some of the citizens. The procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, where a person gets an opportunity of a trial by an ordinary Civil Court presided over by a judicial officer cannot certainly be equated with a decision given by an executive officer, either original, appellate or revisional. The procedure under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act was held to be more drastic and prejudicial than one under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anirudh Singh And Ors. vs Tarkeshwar Singh And Ors. on 12 November, 1971

5. In my opinion, there are numerous difficulties in the way of accepting the views expressed by the courts below. To start with. Section 16 talks of an order passed under the Act. An order under the Act would obviously refer to final order of the Collector envisaged in Section 6 of the Act. Under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 such a final order of the Collector might be one of dropping the proceeding. In that situation the entire rights of the parties would remain un adjudicated which could never have been the intention of the legislature. Secondly, it has now been held by a Bench of this Court in Ramzan Mian v. Executive Engineer P.W.D. Dehri-on-Sone, Shahabad (1969 Pat LJR 241) that Section 5 of the Act which empowers the Collector to pass an order for removal of encroachment on the public land as defined in Section 2 (3) of the Act is void. Therefore, the Collector is no more in a position to pass any final order as mentioned in Section 6 of the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jogindra Manna vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 1 September, 1971

1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that the order incorporated in Annexure 3 be " quashed. The original order passed against the petitioner was incorporated in Annexure 1. The final order by the Commissioner Bhagalpur Division, is incorporated in Annexure 3. In effect, the petitioner has been ordered to remove an alleged encroachment from plot no. 626 in Village Gai Pathor, within Sub-division, under Section 6 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (Bihar Act No. 15 of 1956). The last order passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur was on the 27th March 1969 and by a Judgment and order passed by this Court in a civil writ jurisdiction case. Ramzan Mian v. Executive Engineer. P. W. D., Dehri on Sone, reported in 1969 BLJR 1010, D/- 1-4-1969, Section 6 of this Act has been held to be ultra vires as violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is clear that the orders passed by the authorities culminating in the order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division are all null and void and they must all be quashed.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamal Kanta Sah vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 1 September, 1971

1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that the orders incorporated in Annexures 1, 2 and 3, (although in the prayer portion only Annexure 3 has been mentioned) be quashed. The original order passed against the petitioner was incorporated in Annexure 1 and the appellate order passed against the petitioner is incorporated in Annexure 2. The final order by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, is incorporated in Annexure 3. In effect, the petitioner has been ordered to remove an alleged encroachment from plot No. 1211 in Pakur town, under Section 6 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (Bihar Act 15 of 1956). The last order passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur was on the 27th January 1969 and by a judgment and order passed by this Court in a Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case, Ramzan Mian v. Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Dehri on Sone, reported in 1969 BLJR 1010, dated the 1st April 1969, Section 6 of this Act has been held to be ultra vires as violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is clear that the orders passed by the authorities culminating in the order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division are all null and void and they must all be quashed.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1