Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1838 of 2008
PETITIONER:
DEO NARAYAN YADAV
RESPONDENT:
MD. JAINUL ABEDDIN @ MD. JAINUL @ MD. JANUALUDDIN & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/03/2008
BENCH:
H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1838 OF 2008
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.5246/2006]
Leave granted.
Heard the parties.
In view of the short order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to recit
e
the entire facts leading to the filing of this appeal.
The whole controversy involved in this appeal is whether the order was passed under
sub-Section (10) of Section 48E or under sub-Section (7) of Section 48E of the Bihar
Tenancy Act, 1885. If the order is passed under sub-Section(10) of Section 48E, the
same is not appealable under Section 48F. However, if the order is passed under sub-
Section(7) and (8) of Section 48E, an appeal is maintainable under Section 48F.
The High Court although recorded the submission of the parties, it has not recorded
any finding. At the same time,
......2.
- 2 -
the respondent has challenged the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms passed
on 16/9/1997. An appeal has been preferred, namely, Bataidari Appeal No.24/98, which
was dismissed on the ground of delay by the Collector, Madhepura by its order dated
9/5/2000.
We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The delay in filin
g
the Bataidari Appeal No.24/98 against the order dated 16/9/1997 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Land Reforms is condoned. Bataidari Appeal No.24/98 is now restored to
the file of the Collector. The Collector shall now take up the appeal and dispose of the
appeal expeditiously on merit in accordance with law. We, however, clarify that we do
not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
In terms of the aforesaid direction, the appeal is disposed of.