Patna High Court
Binod Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The observation that the petitioner did not object to the registration of the Dharmshala is to be ignored and will not affect the parties' liberty to raise any points in the pending title suit.
Summary
Petitioner Binod Kumar Singh filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 8 August 2023 that granted him liberty to appeal and maintain status quo, while stating that an observation by the President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust would not affect his defence in Title Suit No. 205 of 2015. The order also erroneously recorded that the petitioner did not object to the registration of Motiram Paliram Dharmshala as a public trust, which conflicted with the relief sought. The petitioner sought a civil review, arguing that the word “registered” could prejudice his case in the pending title suit. The High Court, with the parties’ consent, held that the erroneous observation should be ignored and will not limit either party’s right to raise arguments in the title suit. Consequently, the civil review was disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the erroneous observation in the order that the petitioner did not object to the registration of the Dharmshala on his rights in the pending Title Suit No. 205 of 2015?
Subjects
- civil review
- writ jurisdiction
- status quo
- public trust registration
- title suit
- judicial observation error
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.255 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13002 of 2022
======================================================
Binod Kumar Singh Son of Late Bhupendra Singh Resident of Village
Rahmatpur P.S.-Asarganj, District-Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary- Law Department-cum-Legal
Remembrancer, Bihar State Government, Patna.
2. The Secretary Law Department-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Bihar State
Government, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Munger Division
4. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Munger.
5. The Dy. Collector-Land Reforms LRDC- Tarapur Sub-Division, District-
Munger.
6. The Circle Officer- Asarganj, District- Munger.
7. The President- Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.-
800001
8. Area Incharge-cum-Assistant Sueprintendent, Bihar State Board of
Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marf, Patna-800001.
9. Dr. Rakesh Kumar Son of Mahendra Prasad Mandal the than Mukhiya of
Asarganj Village Panchayat, Resident of Hatinath (near girls middle School)
P.O. and P.S.- Asarganj, District Munger, Piin- 813201
10. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, through its President, Vidyapati Marg,
Patna - 800001.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dev Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7
For Religious Board : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 18-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for review of order dated 08.8.23. passed
Patna High Court C. REV. No.255 of 2023(5) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
by this Court in CWJC No. 13002 of 2022
(Binod Kumar Singh versus The state of
Bihar & Others) whereby and where under
this Honble High court had been graciously
pleased to dispose off the aforementioned
writ petition with liberty given to the present
petitioner-applicant to prefer an appeal
before the competent court within four weeks
from the day of order under review and
granted status quo as existing on that day to
be maintained till the stipulated time of
appeal and also held that any observation
made by the President of the Bihar state
Board of Religious trust in the impugned
order dated 30.06.2023 will not come in the
way of petitioner while defending his case in
Title suit no. 205 of 2015 and/or any appeal,
preferred against the said order however, the
Hon’ble Court while passing the order dated
8.8.2023 made an apparent error of record
in recording the submissions made on behalf
of the petitioner that petitioner's counsel is
Patna High Court C. REV. No.255 of 2023(5) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
not objecting to the declaration and
registration of Motiram Paliram
Dharmshala Asarganj as a public trust as
the same observation is apparently contrary
to the relief sought in the connected writ
petition that have been quoted in the order
dated 8.8.2023 itself and such observation
would nullify the petitioner's very purpose
and cause for preferring appeal/
miscellaneous case before the competent
court against the impugned order dated
30.6.2023 passed by the Beard and hence
frustrate the liberty as granted to the
petitioner by order dated 8.8.2023 itself.
3. An order was passed on 08.08.2023 and this Court
having taken note of the fact that Title Suit No. 205 of 2015 is
pending in which the petitioner is defendant and it is appropriate
that they shall be agitating the matter there.
4. The Civil Review has now been filed and the case
of the petitioner is that the word ‘registered’ which has been
recorded in page 4/5 of the order dated 08.08.2023 may hamper
his case in the Title Suit.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.255 of 2023(5) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
5. With the consent of the parties, this Court records
that the observation as recorded below:
“Motiram Paliram Dharmshala and Asarganj, Munger
as a place for lodging and fooding of the people and accordingly
to get it registered has not been objected by the petitioner” be
ignored while taking up and considering the points raised by the
parties in Title Suit No. 205 of 2015 and both the parties will
have liberty to raise all the points irrespective of any
observation made in the present order.
4. The Civil Review No. 255 of 2023 stands disposed
of with the aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…