Patna High Court
Malti DeviversusThe State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Dept. Govt. of BIhar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable as the dispute is a private property matter best resolved by a regular civil suit, not by Article 226 jurisdiction.
Summary
Petitioner Malti Devi, who purchased a plot of land in Patna district, alleged that private respondents Ajay Rajak and Munni Devi were forcibly occupying and constructing a wall on the land, and that the official respondents (state authorities) failed to intervene despite multiple applications. She filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking protection of possession, restraining orders against the private respondents, and directions to the authorities. The Court observed that the matter is a private property dispute for which a regular civil suit is the appropriate remedy, and that writ jurisdiction is limited to cases of statutory duty violation. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Sohan Lal vs Union of India (AIR 1957 SC 529) and Radhey Shyam vs Chhabi Nath (2015 SCC 423), the Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and to re‑file representations before the concerned officers within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for a private land ownership dispute.
- Whether the High Court can direct state authorities to protect possession of land in such a dispute.
- Whether an alternative remedy of a regular civil suit is available and exclusive in this context.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- property dispute
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- private land dispute
- alternative remedy
- civil suit
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.201 of 2025
======================================================
Malti Devi W/o- Rajendra Paswan, Father of Late Jadu Paswan Resident of
Village- Hasanpura Police Station- Janipur Dist- Patna, A/P- Sahapur Ps-
Parsa bazar, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Dept. Govt. of
BIhar, Patna Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Patna Bihar
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna Bihar
4. The Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif, Patna Bihar
5. The Officer in Charge, Parsa Bazar Dist- Patna Bihar
6. Ajay Rajak S/o- Late Shadev Rajak Village- Sahapur Ps- Parsa bazar, Dist-
Patna
7. Munni Devi w/o- Ajay Rajak Village- Sahapur Ps- Parsa bazar, Dist- Patna
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. G.P.7
For Resp. No. 6 and 7 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Satyendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 31-03-2026 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief(s) :-
“For direction to the official respondents
to protect from private respondents they are
disturbing physical possession and trying to usurp
the registry land bearing Tauzi No. 5225 Khata No.
31 Plot No. 154 Area 16 dhur-8 Dhurki situated at
Mauza-Fatehpur, P.S. Phulwari, District-Patna.
(ii) For a direction to the official
authority to not make any hindrance on the plot
which is under the possession of the petitioner since
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.201 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
2/7
13.12.2000 on the basis of sale deed, rent receipt
and Jamabandi.
(iii) For direction to the respondent state
authority to take legal hard action against the
private respondent no. 6 to 7 who are creating
nuisance on plot without having a right, title and
possession upon the plot with the help of local bad
elements.
(iv) For direction to the respondent state
authority to restrain private respondent no. 6 to 7 go
on the plot.
(v) For any other order/orders on the
basis on facts and circumstances stated herein of the
case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has purchased land from Mosmat Sheela Devi, wife of
late Janardan Singh, R/o village-Hasanpura, P.S. Phulwari
Shariff, present residing at P.S. Janipur, District-Patna bearing
its Tauzi No. 5225, Khata No. 31, Plot No. 154, Area 16 dhur 8
Dhurki situated at Mauza Fatehpur, P.S Phulwari District Patna
vide sale deed dated 13.12.2000 (Annexure-P/1). He further
submits that petitioner has deposited Lagan on 03.06.2020 for
the year 2020-2021 (Annexure-P/2). He further submits that
petitioner has submitted an application dated 15.10.2024 before
the Police Station, Parsa Bazar stating therein that the private
respondents are creating nuisance and are wanting to grab the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.201 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
3/7
aforesaid land forcibly (Annexure-P/3). Learned counsel further
submits that petitioner also submitted an application dated
13.11.2024 through the postal registry before the Circle Officer,
Phulwari Sharif stating therein that the private respondents are
constructing a wall forcibly and grabbing the aforesaid land
(Annexure-P/4). Learned counsel further submits that petitioner
has also submitted an application dated 13.11.2024 before the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna and District Magistrate,
Patna regarding the aforesaid matter (Annexures-P/5 & P/6) but
till date the respondent authorities are sitting tight over the
matter.
3. Learned counsel for private respondent nos. 6 and 7
appeared and submitted that there is a dispute between the
parties on the said portion of land and in cases of private land
dispute, writ is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is
a dispute between the parties regarding the land in question and
the nature of the dispute clearly indicates that, in such type of
dispute, an alternative remedy is available to the parties before
the appropriate forum. Therefore, the writ petition is not the
only efficacious remedy in the present case.
5. After hearing the grievance of the petitioner’s
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.201 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
4/7
counsel, it came to fore that there is dispute between the parties
regarding the land in question and the land in question is the
bone of contention between the parties and where there is
disputed aspect of land or another personal dispute is involved,
the same cannot be decided through summary procedure. Hence,
the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments
has held that regular suit is appropriate remedy for settlement of
dispute relating to property rights between private persons. The
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be
available except where violation of some statutory duty cast on
particular statutory authority is alleged. It is held that the High
Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for
deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law,
civil or criminal are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution being special and extra-ordinary should not
be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant.
In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in
AIR 1957 SC 529 and in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs.
Chhabi Nath and Ors, reported in (2015) SCC 423 are quite
relevant.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.201 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
5/7
7. In the case of Sohan Lal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed as under :
“We do not propose to enquire into
the merits of the rival claims of title to the
property in dispute set up by the appellant
and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we
would be entering into a field of
investigation which is more appropriate
for a Civil Court in a properly constituted
suit to do rather than for a Court
exercising the prerogative of issuing writs.
These are questions of fact and law which
are in dispute requiring determination
before the respective claims of the parties
to this appeal can be decided. Before the
property in dispute can be restored to
Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare
that he had title in that property and was
entitled to recover possession of it. This
would in effect amount to passing a decree
in his favour. In the circumstances to be
mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for
serious consideration whether in
proceedings under Art. 226 of the
Constitution such a declaration ought to
be made and restoration of the property to
Jagan Nath be ordered.”
8. In the case of Radhey Shyam (supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paragraphs 64 and 65 has observed as under :
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.201 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
6/7
“64. However, this Court
unfortunately discerns that of late there is
growing trend amongst several High
Courts to entertain writ petition in cases
of pure property disputes. Disputes
relating to partition suits, matters relating
to execution of a decree, in case of dispute
between landlord and tenant and also in a
case of money decree and in various other
cases where disputed question of property
are involved, writ courts are entertaining
such disputes. In some cases the High
Courts, in a routine manner, entertain
petitions under Article 227 over such
disputes and such petitions are treated as
writ petitions.
65. We would like to make it clear
that in view of the law referred to above in
cases of property rights and in disputes
between private individuals writ court
should not interfere unless there is any
infraction of statute or it can be shown
that a private individual is acting in
collusion with a statutory authority.”
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed
of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate
authority/forum.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.201 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
7/7
10. So far as the grievance of the petitioner as
raised before the Officer-in-Charge, P.S. Parsa Bazar, District-
Patna by way of representation (Annexure-P/3) as well as
Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif, Patna by way of
representation (Annexue-P/4) which have not been decided as
yet, petitioner is granted liberty to represent his grievance, as
has been raised in the present writ petition, afresh before the
Officer-in-Charge, P.S. Parsa Bazar, District-Patna and well as
Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif, Patna within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If such
representation is filed within the stipulated period, the
concerned authority will pass appropriate order after giving
due opportunities of hearing to the parties concerned, without
being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court,
expeditiously within a reasonable period of time.
11. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/
K.C. Jha
U
Checking your session…