DHANANJAY MAHATO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K.R Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Singh. JC to AAG. Since a pure question of law with regard to jurisdictional error of the Court has been raised by the petitioners, the writ application is disposed of with the consent to" the counsels for the parties at the admission stage.

(2.) IN this writ application, petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge. Seraikella in Land Acquisition Title Appeal No. 48/95 is a nullity, being wholly without Jurisdiction and further prayed for permitting the petitioners to file fresh appeal before the appropriate forum under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894.

(3.) MR . Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the Addl. District Judge as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that Section 54 of the Act being mandatory provision, the appellate court has committed serious errors of jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that besides errors of jurisdiction the lower appellate court has also committed error of law and the finding recorded by it is based on no evidence.