SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Pat) 340

SATYESHWAR ROY
Chintamani Sharan Nath Sahadeo – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

1. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing annexure-9 order dated 14-3-1983 by which respondent No. 2, Member Board of Revenue, directed that compensation case of the petitioner under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act for short) be re-opened and the petitioner be noticed to refund the excess compensation of Rupees twenty five lakhs eighty seven thousand and three hundred paid to him. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing annexure-10, notice dated 23-3-1983 issued by respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner, asking the petitioner to refund the aforesaid sum. The petitioner filed an application on 4-10-1983 for amendment of the writ petition and in that he challenged the validity of the certificate case levied for recovery of the amount. That was allowed. The validity of the certificate case No. 6M of 1983-84 is also under challenge.

2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is a proprietor within the meaning of the Act. His interest in the estate including the subsisting lease of mines and minerals, under which he was the lessor, vested in the State of Bihar. A proceeding for payment of compensation to the petitioner was initiated u



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top