Patna High Court
Raghu Nandan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The Court held that the restoration application is allowed and the Letters Patent Appeal is restored to its original file.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of Yadav family members, filed an application seeking restoration of Letters Patent Appeal No. 483 of 1996, which had been dismissed in 1999 for want of prosecution. They argued that the death of the family Karta, illiteracy, health accidents, and a communication gap prevented timely prosecution, and that they have continuously possessed the land declared surplus under Sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act without any claim from the State or private respondents. The State did not appear to contest the restoration. The Court examined the explanations for the delay and the uninterrupted possession, finding sufficient cause to restore the appeal. Consequently, the restoration application was allowed and the appeal was reinstated to its original file.
Issues considered
- Whether a Letters Patent Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution can be restored on the ground of sufficient cause despite a long delay
- Whether continuous peaceful possession of surplus land and lack of opposition by the State constitute sufficient cause for restoration
Legislation cited
- Land Ceiling Act — s. 11(1), 15(1)
- Letters Patent Act — s. 5
Subjects
- restoration of appeal
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Land Ceiling Act
- surplus land
- continuous possession
- delay
- laches
- family Karta
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2206 of 2025
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.483 of 1996
======================================================
1. Raghu Nandan Yadav Son of Late Pant Lal Yadav, Resident of Village-
Jhunni Kala, Police Station - Krityanand Nagar, P.O.- Garhiya Balua,
District- Purnea.
2. Arvind Yadav Son of late Jai Nandan Yadav, Resident of Village - Jhuni
Kala, Police Station - K. Nagar, District- Purnia.
3. Amit Yadav Son of Late Jai Nandan Yadav, Resident of Village - Jhuni Kala,
Police Station - K. Nagar, District- Purnia.
4. Bipul Kr. Yadav Son of late Jai Nandan Yadav Resident of Village - Jhuni
Kala, Police Station - K. Nagar, District- Purnia.
5. Praveen Kumar Saurav Son of Late Jai Nandan Yadav, Resident of Village -
Jhuni Kala, Police Station - K. Nagar, District- Purnia.
6. Mostt. Chandra Prabha Devi Resident of Village - Jhuni Kala, Police Station
- K. Nagar, District- Purnia.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector, Purnia
3. The Additional Sub-Divisional Officer (Ceiling) Purnea.
4. Shokunia, Daughter of Sonai Rishi (since deceased) wife of Lakhaman Rishi
Resident of Village- Jhunni Kala, Police Station - Krityanand Nagar, P.O.-
Garhiya Balua, District- Purnea.
5. Lakhaman Rishi, Son of Changuri Rishi, Resident of Village- Jhunni Kala,
Police Station - Krityanand Nagar, P.O.- Garhiya Balua, District- Purnea.
6. Janardan Rishi, Son of Tetar Rishi, Resident of Village- Jhunni Kala, Police
Station - Krityanand Nagar, P.O.- Garhiya Balua, District- Purnea.
7. Shanichar Rishi, Son of Late Ritu Rishi, Resident of Village- Jhunni Kala,
Police Station - Krityanand Nagar, P.O.- Garhiya Balua, District- Purnea.
8. Khanter Rishi, Son of Shingheshwar Rishi (Since deceased) Resident of
Village- Jhunni Kala, Police Station - Krityanand Nagar, P.O.- Garhiya
Balua, District- Purnea.
9. Mantar Rishi, Son of Shingheshwar Rishi (Since deceased) Resident of
Village- Jhunni Kala, Police Station - Krityanand Nagar, P.O.- Garhiya
Balua, District- Purnea.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amit Srivastava, Sr.Advocate
: Mr.Girish Pandey, Advocate
: Mr.Akash Ambuj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Additional Advocate General-3
Patna High Court MJC No.2206 of 2025(7) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
7 18-02-2026 Heard Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners and learned A.C. to AAG-3 for the
State.
2. This application has been filed for restoration of
LPA No.483 of 1996, which stood dismissed for non-
prosecution by order dated 09.12.1999.
3. The following statements have been made in
paragraph Nos.10, 12, 16, 17,18 and 19 of the present
restoration application:
“10. That it is worth to mention here that appellant
No.1 died in the year 2009, after long illness due to
Cancer developed sometime in the year 1999 to 2000
treated in Govt Hospitals at Patna and Delhi all the
relevant papers relating to treatment of appellant no-1
by the doctor have been burnt at the time of cremation
of appellant no. 1 in the year 2009. He was Karta of the
family, and used to look after the family affairs and also
instant litigation arose on account of unilateral decision
of the then Ceiling authorities declaring the land of the
petitioners as surplus land under Sections 11(1) &
15(1) of the Act.
12. That it is further relevant to mention here that even
after dismissal of this L.P.A. for want of prosecution
neither State respondents nor so-called red card
holders(private respondents) after due service of notices
choose to appear before this Court at the time of
hearing of writ/LP.A. to make any claim over the lands
which had been unilaterally declared surplus and
remained in possession with the petitioners. He has
Patna High Court MJC No.2206 of 2025(7) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
been enjoying the peaceful possession of said land till
date.
16. That it is humbly stated and submitted that apart
from the aforesaid facts it would be relevant to state
that the deceased brother of the petitioner was 'Karta'
of the family who used to look after family affairs and
also contested the instant litigation from the initial
stage of the Ceiling Proceeding in the year 1973-74 till
the filing of the writ application and L.P.A filed before
this Hon'ble High Court at this petitioners though
signed the Vakalatnama but he is an illiterate person
was not aware of the progress of the case and deceased
brother of the petitioners died after his long illness
since the year 2009. The dismissal of the LPA in the
year 1999 could not be known to the petitioners and as
such due to lack of knowledge/communication gap. That
the petitioners could not come before the Hon'ble High
Court to file an appropriate restoration application.
17. That it is humbly stated and submitted that apart
from the petitioners and his deceased brother, none of
the other family members were major at the time of
initiation of Ceiling proceeding and all the family
members were illiterate person and due to that reason
they could not be able to understand the legal
consequences of the proceeding except one of the family
members was/is government servant posted outside
village/remote area reluctant to take any interest in
litigation and as such the petitioners and his deceased
brother and other family members were not aware of
the pendency of the writ application as well as
dismissal of LPA in the year 1999.
18. That it is humbly stated and submitted that apart
from the aforesaid fact, the petitioner /appellant no 2
also met an accident after death of his elder
brother(appellant no. 1) and also operated twice in the
hospital for installation of steel support in his leg and
remain bed ridden till the year 2017 thereafter, anyhow,
able to walk freely as is evident from the fact that the
petitioner/appellant no 2 to obtain Disability certificate
from the hospital in the year 2017 NSH, and as such,
there is no deliberate, delay and laches on the part of
the petitioner/appellant no.2 also in pursuing the Case,
which happened due to circumstances, beyond the
control of the petitioner/ appellant no. 2 since the year
1999 to 2017 as well as communication gap between
Patna High Court MJC No.2206 of 2025(7) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
the counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners/
appellants.
19. That it is humbly stated and submitted that it would
be specifically mentioned here that even after dismissal
of LPA for want of prosecution in the year 1999 and the
dismissal of writ application in the year 1996, (dated
01-03-96.) which was duly communicated to
Respondent No.-4. There is no substantial/material
changes had taken from 1976 to 2025 (no physical
delivery of possession to the beneficiaries) of the
surplus land as is evident from the fact that the
petitioners have uninterrupted /peaceful possession
over the disputed/surplus land even the Respondent
State have never denied the said fact as well as the
private Respondents (Red Card Holders) also have not
made any claim/complain of any dispossession before
any authority since the date of distribution of Parcha in
their favour in the year 1976 to 2025 and as such
adjudication of the rights of both the parties existing in
the year 1976 is still alive and as such instant
restoration application may be allowed on this ground
alone.”
4. Considering the statements made in the
aforementioned paragraphs, this Court finds sufficient cause
for restoration of the appeal.
5. Accordingly, the present restoration application
stands allowed. LPA No. 483 of 1996 is restored to its original
file.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U
Checking your session…