Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR
Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal @ Vinod Kumar Son of Arjun Sah – Appellant
Versus
Binita Ojha Wife of Yogesh Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. understanding the background of pre-emption claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding the impact of the repeal on pending pre-emption cases. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court’s analysis on the application of the amendment act. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. relevance of concluded proceedings in light of the amendment. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. maintaining substantive justice over procedural technicalities. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 6. final ruling and allowing the appeal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH KUMAR, J.
Learned Advocate for the respective parties are present.
2. The challenge in the present intra-court appeal is made to an order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2024 passed in CWJC No. 18468 of 2021, wherein the learned Court after hearing the parties has been pleased to set-aside the order dated 06.08.2021 passed in BLT Case No. 547 of 2019.
3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal, as emerged from the records are that the appellant-respondent no. 7 claiming to be a pre-emptor had filed petition under Section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter refe
The repeal of Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act does not affect previously executed sale deeds, emphasizing that completed transactions must be upheld despite procedural amendments.
The court emphasized that the right to pre-emption is weak in law and can be declined in appropriate cases.
Right of pre-emption is said to be maligned law. Such rights have been characterized as feudal, archaic and outmoded.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law does not recognize the right of pre-emption by a person claiming to be a superior adjoining raiyat to that of the purchaser who is als....
[The right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act requires the claimant to provide evidence of co-sharer status, and the absence of such evidence renders the application inv....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to correcting factual determinations made by lower tribunals unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
