Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.54 seconds)Kumar Kalika Nand Singh And Ors. vs Kumar Shiva Nandan Singh And Ors. on 19 July, 1921
In the case of Kalika Kuer v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1983 PLJR 1203, it has been held by this court that when decision has been rendered without taking into consideration and earlier decision or a provision of status, the same does not create a binding precedent. It was further held that a point not argued before a Bench cannot deter a subsequent Bench to decide the same."
Section 4 in Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Ram Narain Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 19 August, 1972
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.
Vijay Narain Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 April, 1984
2. This order has been challenged by the petitioners on three grounds (1) that the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Purnea is without jurisdiction as under the provision of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act the appeal lies only against the orders passed under Sub-sections 7 & 8 of Section 48 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. No appeal is maintainable against the order passed under Sub-section 10 of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (2) The impugned order has been passed by the Addl. Collector relying on the decision in the case of flam Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1973) BLJR 662 which has no binding effect as it is a judgment in sub-silentio. (3) The Addl. Collector is not the appellate authority under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act as only the Collector of the District is authorised to exercise appellate jurisdiction under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act, the order impugned is without jurisdiction as it has been passed by the Addl. Collector.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956
Section 37 in Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 4 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mohd. Jainul Ansari And Ors. vs Mohd. Khalil on 10 May, 1990
It was a decision sub-silentio and for this petitioners counsel has placed reliance on 1990 (1) BLJR 51 Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1993 (2) BLJ 583 Shankar Prasad Sahi v. State of Bihar and Ors. and 1991 (1) BLJR 23 Md. Jainui Ansari and Ors. v. Md. Khalil. In 1991(1) BLJR 12 it has been held that the judgment rendered while ignoring the relevant provisions of statute must be held to be in per incuriam. Such judgment is not binding precedent for any co-equal Bench. In 1993(2) BLJ 583 while deciding a case under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Act it has been held that :