Patna High Court
Arjun Lal AgrawalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The order dated 25.08.2025 is recalled and the Collector is directed to dispose of the Revenue Cancellation Appeal No. 03 of 2025 within two months, with the parties maintaining status quo.
Summary
The petitioner, Arjun Lal Agrawal, filed a civil review challenging the High Court's order dated 25.08.2025 which had recorded that an injunction was passed ex‑parte in a revenue cancellation appeal. The petitioner argued that the Collector of Araria had heard both parties on 10.06.2025 and that the order was not ex‑parte, and further contended that the injunction order lacked any reasoning. The Court examined the record, noting that the Collector’s injunction order indeed did not state any reasons and that the earlier observation of an ex‑parte hearing was incorrect. Consequently, the Court recalled the impugned order of 25.08.2025, directed the District Magistrate to dispose of the Revenue Cancellation Appeal No. 03 of 2025 within two months, and ordered both parties to maintain the status quo over the disputed property. The civil review was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 25.08.2025 was passed ex‑parte without hearing the parties
- Whether the injunction order issued by the Collector was valid despite lacking reasons
- Whether the High Court should recall the impugned order and direct disposal of the revenue appeal
Subjects
- ex‑parte hearing
- injunction
- revenue cancellation appeal
- mutation cancellation
- status quo
- civil review
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.267 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13459 of 2025
======================================================
Arjun Lal Agrawal Son of Late Banwari Lal Agrawal, Resident of R.B. Lane,
Forbisganj, Ward No.-5, P.O. and P.S.-Forbisganj Magistrate, District-Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector cum District Magistrate, Araria.
2. The Additional Collector, Araria.
3. The D.C.L.R. Forbisganj Magistrate, Araria.
4. The Circle Officer, Forbisganj Magistrate, Araria.
5. Jagdish Singh, son of Sardar Gurumukh Singh @ Gurumukh Singh,
Resident of Hospital Road (Ram Manohar Lohiya Path), Subhash Chowk,
Ward No.-7, Forbisganj, P.O. and Police Station-Forbisganj Magistrate,
District-Araria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Harun Qureshi, AC to SC-01
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
3 05-01-2026 The instant Civil Review in CWJC No.13459 of 2025
has been filed by the original private respondent No.5, as
petitioner, against the original writ petitioner and others.
2. It is contended by the petitioner against the order
dated 25.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWJC No.13459 of
2025 that this Court wrongly recorded in paragraph No.4 of the
impugned judgment that the petitioner was not given
opportunity of being heard and an ex-parte order of injunction
was passed in Cancellation of Revenue Appeal No.03/2025.
3. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
Patna High Court C. REV. No.267 of 2025(3) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
refers to an order dated 10.06.2025 to show that the writ-
petitioner filed his Hajiri before the Court of Appeal and having
heard both the parties, the Collector Araria passed an order of
injunction directing the order dated 26.12.2024 passed in
Mutation Cancellation Case No.262 of 2023-24 shall not be
given affect to until further order. The next date was fixed on
25.06.2025.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that when
the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 was passed after hearing
both the parties, the observation of this Court that the said order
was passed ex-parte was wrong and the State-Respondents also
did not assist the Court properly.
5. I have heard the learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner.
6. It is true that the writ-petitioner filed Hajiri in
Revenue Cancellation Appeal No.03 of 2025 on 10.06.2025.
7. However, on perusal of the impugned order dated
10.06.2025 this Court further finds that the Collector, Araria did
not assign any reason in favour of his passing order of
injunction. The impugned order is bereft of any reason.
8. Be that as it may in the writ petition, the Collector,
Araria was directed to dispose of the petition for temporary
Patna High Court C. REV. No.267 of 2025(3) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
injunction giving opportunity to the parties.
9. Though, the impugned order does not state any
reason as to why the order of injunction was issued. Since, this
Court passed the order directing the Collector, Araria to dispose
of the injunction petition in CWJC No.13459 of 2025 in
connection with Revenue Cancellation Appeal Case No.03 of
2025, the said order ought not to have been passed only on the
ground of ex-parte hearing of the petition for injunction.
10. Therefore, the order dated 25.08.2025 passed in
CWJC No.13459 of 2025 is recalled.
11. The District Magistrate, Araria is specifically
directed to dispose of the Revenue Cancellation Appeal Case
No. 03 of 2025 within two months from the date of
communication of this order.
12. In the meantime, both the parties are directed to
maintain the status quo in respect of the property in question.
13. With the above order, the instant civil review
stands disposed of.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
mdrashid/-
U
Checking your session…