SUSHILA DEVI versus RAMANANDAN PRASAD & ORS.

SUSHILA DEVI versus RAMANANDAN PRASAD & ORS.

The February 17, 1958 order was a final order, not interlocutory. Successive applications seeking restoration are not permitted under the Act; time taken pursuing remedies cannot be excluded, and section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is inapplicable. The High Court erred in holding otherwise.

Parties
Appellant: Sushila Devi; Respondent: Ramanandan Prasad; Respondent: Respondents 2-4
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 November 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate Under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution From Patna High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restoration to Former Raiyats, Finality of Orders, Limitation and Extension of Time
Property Law Land Restoration Restoration to Former Raiyats Finality of Orders Limitation and Extension of Time

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sushila Devi

Appellant

Ramanandan Prasad

Respondent

Respondents 2-4

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate Under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution From Patna High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the February 17, 1958 order was a final order under the Act
  2. 2 Whether time for payment of compensation could be extended after expiry of the period fixed by the original order
  3. 3 Whether successive applications under section 3 of the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951 are maintainable

Ratio Decidendi

The February 17, 1958 order was a final order, not interlocutory. Successive applications seeking restoration are not permitted under the Act; time taken pursuing remedies cannot be excluded, and section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is inapplicable. The High Court erred in holding otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court's judgment set aside
  • Order of Additional Collector dismissing fresh application restored