SATYANARAIN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) In this writ petition, Petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20.6.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue in Bhojpur Case No. 249 of 2000 (Annexure-4) affirming the order of the Commissioner, Patna Division dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the Collector rejecting his application for delivery of possession.

(3.) Mr. Shahi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner is auction purchaser and he filed application for delivery of possession which was rejected initially by the Certificate Officer and confirmed up to the Board Revenue. Learned Counsel contended that rejection of application of the Petitioner for delivery of possession is erroneous and bad in law. He submitted that the application for delivery of possession filed by the Petitioner has erroneously been treated as Barred by limitation. According to him, the limitation for filing of application is to commence only from the date the sale certificate is granted by the Certificate Officer under Rule 50 of the Rules under Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act and in the present case no sale certificate was ever granted. He also contended that, in fact, there was delay on account of injunction granted by the Civil Court in a suit filed by the co-sharer of the Respondents which ultimately ended by dismissal of appeal on 25.6.1991 and the Petitioner filed application for delivery of possession on 31st March, 1992 i.e. within one year of the dismissal of the appeal. Thus, according to him, the application was not barred by law of limitation.