Patna High Court
Mohan Yadav and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The Tribunal’s order is set aside as it was passed without proper consideration of the facts, and the matter is remanded to the Collector to accept the cost and decide the appeal on merits.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of Yadavs, filed a writ petition challenging three orders: the Bihar Land Tribunal’s confirmation of lower‑court orders, the Collector’s dismissal of a revenue appeal under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act, and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector’s declaration of respondent 5 as an under‑raiyat with a restraining order. They argued that the Collector had restored the appeal only on condition of a Rs 500 cost, but the case was not numbered, preventing payment; they obtained a direction from the Tribunal to number the case and accept the cost. The Tribunal later, on 29‑Nov‑2016, held there was no illegality and upheld the lower‑court orders, which the petitioners contended was decided without proper consideration of the facts. The High Court found the Tribunal’s order unsustainable, set it aside, and remanded the matter to the Collector to accept the cost and decide the appeal on its merits within six months. The parties were directed to appear before the Collector on 6‑Apr‑2026 and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Bihar Land Tribunal dated 29‑Nov‑2016 is legally sustainable despite alleged failure to consider the petitioners’ factual submissions.
- Whether the Collector can be directed to accept the cost of Rs 500 and proceed with Revenue Appeal No. 104 of 2012 on its merits.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Tenancy Act — s. 48E(10), 48F
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Land Tribunal
- Bihar Tenancy Act
- cost of appeal
- restoration of appeal
- under raiyat
- procedural irregularity
- remand
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5654 of 2017
======================================================
1. Mohan Yadav
2. Krityanand Yadav @ Kritnarayan Yadav,
3. Kadam Lal Yadav, All sons of Late Jageshwar Yadav,
4. Dinesh Yadav,
5. Arbind Yadav, Both sons of Bokai Yadav,
6. Bhim Yadav, Son of Late Nand Lal Yadav, All residents of Village-
Ramnagar Farsahi, P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Member Administrative, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna.
3. The Collector, Purnea.
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Purnea.
5. Sone Lal Yadav, Son of Late Tanuk Lal Yadav, resident of Village-
Ramnagar Farsahi, P.O.- Harpathe, P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
Mr. Subhash Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Karnika, Advocate
For the respondent no.5 : Mr. Shyam Sundar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for respondent no. 5 and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ application has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) Order dated 29.11.2016 passed by
the learned Member, Administrative, Bihar Land
Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No.130 of 2016
Patna High Court CWJC No.5654 of 2017(3) dt.10-03-2026
2/4
(annexure-12), whereby and where under he has
held that there is no illegality in the impugned
orders passed by the lower court and has
consequently confirmed the same and rejected the
claim of the petitioners.
(ii) Order dated 5.8.2014, passed by the
learned Collector, Purnea U/S 48 F of the Bihar
Tenancy Act in R. A. Case No.104/12 (Annexure-8),
whereby and where under he has been pleased to
dismiss the appeal for default.
(iii) Order dated 5.5.12, passed by the
Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Banmankhi in
Case No.49/07-08 U/S 48 E(10) of the Bihar
Tenancy Act (Annexure-7), whereby and where
under he has been pleased to declare Respondent
No.5 Sonelal Yadav as an under raiyat of the land
in dispute and has restrained the petitioners from
going over the said land.”
3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners had filed a Miscellaneous petition for restoration of
Revenue Appeal Case No. 104 of 2012 to its original file and
number before the learned Collector, Purnea (respondent no.
3), who restored the said appeal subject to payment of a cost of
Rs. 500/- (five hundred). It is further submitted that the
petitioners tried to deposit the said amount of cost; however,
since the Miscellaneous Case of 2014 filed for restoration of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5654 of 2017(3) dt.10-03-2026
3/4
aforesaid appeal had not been numbered, the petitioners were
unable to deposit the said cost and also filed a Miscellaenous
case on 21.5.2015 for allowing the petitioners to deposit the
cost of Rs. 500/- in specific head. It is next submitted that, in
the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners approached the
Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna for a direction to respondent no. 3
to number the said Miscellaneous Case of 2014 and accept the
cost of Rs. 500/-, which was allowed by order dated 19.08.2014.
4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 29.11.2016
passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in BLT Case No. 130
of 2016, as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition, it
appears that the matter has been decided on merit without
proper consideration of the aforesaid facts and without
recording any cogent finding in that regard.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 passed by
the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna (respondent no. 2) in BLT Case
No. 130 of 2016 cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly
set aside.
6. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the learned
Collector, Purnea ( respondent no. 3), who shall accept the cost
of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) as directed earlier vide order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.5654 of 2017(3) dt.10-03-2026
4/4
19.08.2014 and thereafter proceed to decide Revenue Appeal
No. 104 of 2012 on its own merits, after giving due notice and
opportunity of hearing to the parties. The entire exercise shall
be completed within a period of six months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. The parties are directed to appear before respondent
no. 3 on 06.04.2026 along with a certified copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
writ application stands disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
U
Checking your session…