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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4099

PATNA HIGH COURT
RAJIV ROY, J
Manesar Yadav @ Maneswar Yadav @ Maheshwar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors. – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20510 of 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Ms. Anita Kumari
For the Respondents: Mr. Md.Khurshid Alam

The court emphasizes the need for remand in cases of procedural irregularities affecting substantive rights.

Headnote:The case examines the legality of an appellate order set aside by the Respondent no.3, based on grounds of ex-parte proceedings deemed unsustainable. The petitioner sought annulment and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The court ruled on procedural missteps that warranted further examination of the original case, affirming the appropriateness of further review. The final ruling mandated future listing of the case.

Table of Content
1. procedural issues must be addressed before reaching conclusions on substantive rights. (Para 2 , 3)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

2 02-12-2025 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

“(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the judgment and order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Respondent no.3 in Bataidari Appeal Case No.3/2014-15 (Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs. Manesar Yadav and others), whereby and where under the Respondent no.3 was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Respondent no.4 in Bataidari Case No.78 of 2006-07 on the ground that the aforesaid order passed by the Respondent no.4 was the ex-parte order against the Respondent no.5 and, therefore, unsustainable in law.

(ii) For a declaration that if technicalities in the proceeding persuaded the Respondent no.3 to set aside the order passed by the Respondent no.4 after setting aside the order,the Respondent no.3 ought to have remanded the matter back to the Respondent no.4 for fresh consideration in accordance with law and, therefore, could not have finally determined the Bataidari Case of the petitioner sitting in appeal over the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector.

(iii) For issuance any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Issue notice to the respondent no.5 and 6 through both processes i.e. ordinary as well as registered cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of two weeks failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench.

4. In case, the order passed is not complied and the matter accordingly stands dismissed, subsequently, the same be posted under the heading ‘To be Mentioned’.

5. List this case on 27.01.2026.

(Rajiv Roy, J)

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 Back to top