PATNA, India, Sept. 9 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 11:

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules against the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5793 of 2021.

2. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 11.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has raised limited grievance before this Court that while dismissing/disposing of the writ petition filed by the present appellant, the learned Single Judge has observed that petitioner has filed the petition with ulterior motive and he was fully aware that the land in question belonged to respondent no. 11 and, therefore, against the aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 10 of the judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that he has not filed the present appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition but, as stated hereinabove, with a limited grievance, the appeal has been filed. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate that because of the aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge, respondent no. 11 is the owner of the land and because of the different proceedings which are pending before the concerned authorities, the present appellant/writ petitioner would suffer prejudice. It has been contended that the government is the owner of the land in dispute, despite which the aforesaid observation has been made by the learned Single Judge. It has been contended that the land in question is Gair Mazarua Aam land and, in fact, the respondent no. 11 is not the owner of the said land and, therefore, the aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 10 be set aside or appropriate observation may be made by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 11 has mainly contended that, in fact, the learned Single Judge has not given any finding in paragraph no. 10 that the respondent no. 11 is the owner of the land. Learned counsel has referred the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph nos. 4 and 6 of the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that it appears that the learned Single Judge has made that observation in paragraph no. 10 pursuant to the other orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions filed by the respondent no. 11 or by the present appellant/writ petitioner.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxMDg5IzIwMjQjMSNO-7wqiQeCdgho=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.