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

1995 Supreme(Pat) 365

B.L.YADAV, G.B.PATTANAIK
Junaid Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

B. L. Vaclav, J.

1. Ours being an agricultural country, hence in respect of the legislation and litigation pertaining to agriculture, efforts must be made, to make articulate, the inarticulate premise but only to the extent which follows from necessary compulsion of the situations and the Constitutional position. The litigation pertaining to agriculture has to be carefully dealt with The Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, used to say that India lives in villages and if some body wants to see India he has to go to the villages. We are faced with baffling questions of interpretation of Sections 37-A and 37-B of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of fragmentation Act, 1956 (compendiously "the Act" ).

2. This Letters Patent Appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters patent of the Patna High Court Rules is directed against the judgment dated 23.1.1995 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in [cw. JC. No.10592 of 1993] by which the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India filed by Must. Hasibunnisa Bibi (respondent no.6 in this appeal) against the present appellant.

3. The factual













































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