Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (2.08 seconds)
Documents citing Ramkrit Singh And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 9 March, 1979

Most. Prabhawati Kumari vs State And Ors on 2 September, 2019

In the case of Ramkrit Singh (supra), the vires of Sections 12A, 37 and 4(c) of the Act was challenged on the ground that those provisions were discriminatory. It was argued before the Hon'ble Full Bench that the Assistant Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officers who have been empowered to finally determine the question of title and against whose determination no challenge may be made in the civil suit, had no judicial training and were ill equipped to decide the question of title. It was further contended that the decision before the authorities under the Act required consideration of intricate question of facts and law and while the door of the courts were open for the general public, the same was closed for those who were covered by the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 142 - Cited by 0 - A P Sahi - Full Document

Baldev Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 September, 2014

On the other hand, it was observed that in the case of Ramkrit Singh (supra) the Court did not consider the question as to whether the consolidation authorities are courts of limited jurisdiction or not. In connection with this observation, we would like to say that an earlier decision may seems to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the Court or more aspects should have been gone into by the Court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the latter bench of coordinate jurisdiction. Easy VIMAL KUMAR 2014.09.29 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 6 course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits. Though hardly necessary, we may however, refer to a few decisions on the above proposition."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document

Samarth Raj Mehta And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 September, 2014

On the other hand, it was observed that in the case of Ramkrit Singh (supra) the Court did not consider the question as to whether the consolidation authorities are courts of limited jurisdiction or not. In connection with this observation, we would like to say that an earlier decision may seems to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the Court or more aspects should have been gone into by the Court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the latter bench of coordinate jurisdiction. Easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits. Though hardly necessary, we may however, refer to a few decisions on the above proposition."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document

Suman Kumar Sinha vs The Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank on 31 August, 2021

The Full Bench in case of Kalika Kuer vs. State of Bihar (supra) had further held that certain categories of disputes and the matters could have been considered and decided by the Civil Court despite the restrictions placed under Section 4(b) and 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation Act and bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 37 of the Act, contrary to the view earlier taken by the Full Bench of the same strength in case of Ramkrit Singh (supra).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document

Srinibas Jena And Ors. vs Janardan Jena And Ors. on 12 August, 1980

In course of hearing, a recent Full Bench decision in the case of Ramkrit Singh v. State, AIR 1979 Pat 250 was placed before us. That was a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act of 1956. Petitioners there had filed a suit challenging certain alienations made by one of the defendants in favour of the others. The plaintiffs claimed that the alienations be vacated and possession be recovered. The properties were located in certain villages which were subjected to consolidation proceedings and defendants applied in the suit that the suit should be declared to have abated under Section 4 (c) of the Bihar Act. Since the trial court declared the suit to have abated, the writ petition was filed asking that order to be quashed. Section 4 of the Bihar Act, so far as relevant, provides:--
Orissa High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Shivaji Rai vs Rajendra Rai And Anr. on 3 July, 1992

14. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkrit Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. had occasion to consider this question in relation to a suit in which a declaration was cought that certain alienations made by defendant first party in favour of defendant party were not binding upon the plaintiff. It was held that such a suit would abate under Section (c) of the Act as the deed is not required to be set aside before it can cease to have legal effect.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Jagnarayan Singh vs Shubhraji Devi & Ors on 10 March, 2010

"4. The only ground given by the trial court in rejecting the defendant‟s prayer is that the question of title cannot be decided by the consolidation authority for which it is only the Civil Court that it is competent. I am afraid the conception of the learned Judge is totally misconceived. The said question has been set at rest by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkrit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in AIR 1979 Patna 250.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S K Katriar - Full Document

B.D. Sharma vs Union Of India on 20 December, 2012

18. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singhs case (supra) was an appeal preferred by the State of Bihar before the Apex Court against the judgment and order dated 25.09.1989 passed by the Patna High Court declaring Section 15 (1) and 15 (2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 ultra vires of Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution. The Apex Court remanded the said case to the High Court to consider the decision and reasoning in the two judgments of the Full Benches i.e. in the case of Ramkrit Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (AIR 1979 Patna 250) and the case of Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh (supra) which run contrary to each other on the very same subject.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranjeet Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 June, 2018

In that background, the Supreme Court's decision in the cases of Rabindra Thakur Vs. Collector, Muzaffarpur (supra), Sheo Joti Devi (supra) and Ramkrit Singh (supra), to the effect that the Chakbandi authority had full right to adjudicate the claim of the parties even in respect of title and possession does not help the petitioner's case since there is no finding of title and possession.
Patna High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next