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.