test_1.jsonl

{"id": "3e4eda11ee62-51", "Titles": "Maheshwar Mandal & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 June, 2014", "text": "also requires to be read down. Again the right referred to in the said clause (g) has to be a right conferred by or accrued under any of the aforesaid six enactments and none other. \u201eA person\u201f would mean an allottee/ a settlee of a land or a Raiyat as defined in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act of 2009. No person other than an allottee/ a settlee or a Raiyat can have an access to the remedy under the Act of 2009. Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 2009 which refers to \"Construction of unauthorized structure\" should also be read down to mean the construction of unauthorized structure on the land of a Raiyat allotted or settled under any of the above referred six enactments and no other land or structure. Clause (j) of Sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of", "source": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154031036/"}
{"id": "3e4eda11ee62-52", "Titles": "Maheshwar Mandal & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 June, 2014", "text": "of Section 4 of the Act of 2009 is clearly outside the purview of the any of the above referred six enactments. The principle of lis pendence transfer is necessarily applicable to a civil litigation. If at all, its reference in the Act of 2009 would necessarily mean the transfer of the land of a Raiyat or a settlee allotted or settled under any of the aforesaid six enactments pending the adjudication under the concerned Act. In our opinion, the power of the Competent Authority under the Act of 2009 cannot be read to be wide enough to enfold in its embrace all kinds of disputes relating to any land.", "source": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154031036/"}
{"id": "3e4eda11ee62-53", "Titles": "Maheshwar Mandal & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 June, 2014", "text": "In my opinion, Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act of 2009 brings a complete anachronism as it has the effect of encompassing in its folds any real or imaginary right an allottee or a settlee or a Raiyat can claim which is not conferred by any of the aforesaid six enactments. That would necessarily mean that the <span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_37\"> Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2013 (12) dt. 24 .06.2014</span> rights which are not conferred by or accrued under the above referred six enactments also can be adjudicated by the Competent Authority under the Act of 2009. This wide power conferred upon the Competent Authority is unbridled, unfettered and unguided. As we have seen on the facts of the present case that they are grossly abused. It is not possible to save the", "source": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154031036/"}
{"id": "3e4eda11ee62-54", "Titles": "Maheshwar Mandal & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 June, 2014", "text": "abused. It is not possible to save the said Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act of 2009 by employing the principle of harmonious interpretation. The said Sub-section (4) requires to be held to arbitrary and to that extent unconstitutional.", "source": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154031036/"}
{"id": "3e4eda11ee62-55", "Titles": "Maheshwar Mandal & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 June, 2014", "text": "Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act of 2009 empowers the Competent Authority to allow the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of complex issues of title. Although the said Sub-section (5) is directory, should be read as mandatory. It shall be the duty of the Competent Authority to refer the complex issues of adjudication of title to the concerned Civil Court having jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate such disputes.", "source": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154031036/"}