Patna High Court
Ram Bilash SharmaversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous due to the change in law relating to pre-emption.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of the late Ram Bilash Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 4 August 2016 passed by the Chairman of the Bihar Land Tribunal which rejected their case. They also sought a declaration that a pre-emption application filed by respondent No.5 (Rajeshwar Sharma) in Land Ceiling Case No. 18 of 2008 was not maintainable. The petitioners argued that a change in law relating to pre-emption rendered their petition infructuous. Justice Rajiv Roy held that, in view of the legislative change, the petition could no longer be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous and any deposited amount was to be returned.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Bihar Land Tribunal dated 4 August 2016 rejecting the petitioners' case can be quashed.
- Whether the pre-emption application filed by respondent No.5 in Land Ceiling Case No. 18 of 2008 is maintainable in law and fact.
- Whether the petition becomes infructuous due to a change in law relating to pre-emption.
Subjects
- pre-emption
- land ceiling
- writ petition
- land tribunal
- infructuous
- quash order
- Bihar Land Reforms
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20110 of 2016
======================================================
1.1. Ramuna Devi Wife of late Ram Bilash Sharma, Resident of Village -
Bhartipur, P.S. Maulviganj Pauthu, District- Aurangabad.
1.2. Sanjay Kumar Son of Late Ram Bilash Sharma, Resident of Village -
Bhartipur, P.S. Maulviganj Pauthu, District- Aurangabad.
1.3. Dhanjay Kumar Son of late Ram Bilash Sharma, Resident of Village -
Bhartipur, P.S. Maulviganj Pauthu, District- Aurangabad.
1.4. Ranjan Sharma Son of late Ram Bilash Sharma, Resident of Village -
Bhartipur, P.S. Maulviganj Pauthu, District- Aurangabad.
1.5. Manoj Kumar Son of Late Ram Bilash Sharma, Resident of Village -
Bhartipur, P.S. Maulviganj Pauthu, District- Aurangabad.
1.6. Saroj Kumar Chawanimar Son of late Ram Bilash Sharma, Resident of
Village - Bhartipur, P.S. Maulviganj Pauthu, District- Aurangabad.
1.7. Bashisth Sharma Son of late Ram Bilash Sharma, Resident of Village -
Bhartipur, P.S. Maulviganj Pauthu, District- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Commissioner Gaya Division, Gaya.
3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Aurangabad.
5. Rajeshwar Sharma son of Ragho Sharma resident of village Bhartipur, P.O.
Maulviganj Paleshu, P.S. Paleshu, District Aurangabad.
6. Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Radhakant Sharma resident of village Angrahi, P.O.
Angrahi, P.S. Daudnagar, District Aurangabad - Vendor.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, AC to GP-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
i) For quashing the order dated 4.8.2016
Patna High Court CWJC No.20110 of 2016(4) dt.19-01-2026
2/2
passed by the Hon'ble Chairman of the Bihar Land
Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No. 757 of 2015
whereby the Hon'ble Chairman of Land Tribunal Patna
was rejected the case of petitioner which is contained
in annexure-4 to the writ application.
(ii) For holding and according that pre-
emption application filed by the respondent no.5 vide
Land Ceiling Case no. 18 of 2008 neither maintainable
in law nor on facts and hence fit to be rejected by the
Hon'ble Court.
(iii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs
to the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of this case including cost of the
litigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that with the
change of law relating to pre-emption matter, the case has become
infructuous.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as
infructuous.
5. The amount, if deposited, has to be returned.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…