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

1996 Supreme(Pat) 49

H.L.AGARWAL, M.P.VARMA
Anant Sah – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Order

1. Notice was issued to private respondents 5 to 8 by order dated 8.11.1985 so as to dispose of this application at the admission stage itself, if possible, and they have appeared through counsel.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at great length, and by this order the writ application is being disposed of.

3. One of the points urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the appeal filed by respondents 5 to 8 before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram, (Respondent no. 3) was barred by limitation, having been filed beyond one month of the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days under Section 10(6) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. In paragraph 14 of the application the petitioners have asserted that no petition for condoning the delay was filed by the aforesaid respondents, who were appellants before Respondent no. 3. From the order passed by respondent No. 3 it appears that there is no discussion on the point of limitation. The revisional authority, namely, the Director of Consolidation, when this point was pressed before him, did not enter into any discussion on the ground that this point was not agitated


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