Patna High Court
Jitendra Goswami alias Jitendra KoiriversusThe State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to comply with the notice and present their case to the Circle Officer.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of individuals claiming ancestral ownership of land (Khata No. 854, Khesra No. 2035) in Semra Labedaha, West Champaran, challenged two notices issued by the Circle Officer, Piprasi, which alleged illegal possession and demanded a show‑cause response. They sought a writ to quash the notices, arguing that the notices were issued without a case number and that the Bihar State Religious Trust Board, which they claimed had a role, was not made a respondent. The State counsel pointed out that the petitioners had not filed any reply to the notices and had approached the court only after the second notice. The court observed that the petitioners were free to present their case and supporting documents to the Circle Officer and that the officer had not taken further action after the notices. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, effectively directing the petitioners to comply with the notice process.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued by the Circle Officer can be quashed by a writ of mandamus or certiorari.
- Whether the petitioners’ failure to file a show‑cause response bars the relief sought.
- Whether the Bihar State Religious Trust Board should be impleaded as a respondent.
Subjects
- land encroachment
- revenue law
- notice
- writ petition
- administrative law
- property dispute
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10551 of 2025
======================================================
1. Jitendra Goswami alias Jitendra Koiri S/o Late Jamuna Goswami alias
Jamuna Koiri, R/o Village- Dhanauti, P.O. and P.S- Katiya, District-
Gopalganj, at present R/o Village- Semra Labedaha, P.S.- Piprasi, District-
West Champaran.
2. Dinesh Kushwaha @ Dinesh S/o- Arjun Kushwaha, R/o Shripatinagar, P.O-
Semra Labedaha, P.S.- Piprasi, District- West Champaran.
3. Dinanath Kushwaha S/o- Arjun Kushwaha, R/o Shripatinagar, P.O- Semra
Labedaha, P.S.- Piprasi, District- West Champaran.
4. Ramasre S/o- Budhram Kushwaha, R/o Shripatinagar, P.O- Semra
Labedaha, P.S.- Piprasi, District- West Champaran.
5. Premshila Devi W/o Rajkishore Kushwaha, R/o Shripatinagar, P.O- Semra
Labedaha, P.S.- Piprasi, District- West Champaran.
6. Binod @ Binod Kushwaha S/o Arjun Kushwaha, R/o Shripatinagar, P.O-
Semra Labedaha, P.S.- Piprasi, District- West Champaran.
7. Nagwanti Devi W/o Narshingh Baitha, R/o Shripatinagar, P.O- Semra
Labedaha, P.S.- Piprasi, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bagaha, District- West Champaran.
4. The Circle Officer, Piprasi District- West Champaran.
5. The Officer Incharge, Piprasi, District- West Champaran.
6. Kunjbihari Goswami Chela of Late Shyambihari Goswami, R/o Village-
Kotwa Kabir Math, P.O- Kotwa, P.S- Nebua Naurangia, District- Kushi
Nagar, At Present R/o Village and P.O- Semra Labedaha, Sripat Nagar, P.S-
Piprasi, District- West Champaran at Bettiah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aakash Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (06)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 30-03-2026 Heard Mr. Aakash Choudhary, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10551 of 2025(4) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
2. The present application has been preferred:
filed for issuance of an appropriate
writ / order / direction for quashing the notice
dated 21.08.2024 issued under the signature of
Respondent No. 4 i.e., the Circle Officer,
Piprasi, as contained in Annexure - P/6,
whereby the Petitioners have been directed to
appear before him and produced evidence with
regard to illegal possession over the land in
question appertaining to revenue Thana no.
52, Khata No. 854, Khesra No. 2035 situated
at Semra Labedaha, P.S - Piprasi, District -
West Champaran without mentioning any case
number.
3. Two notices have been challenged by the petitioner,
both issued by the Circle Officer, Piprasi, West Champaran. First is
the notice dated 21.08.2024 and the second one is 11.04.2025
where it has been recorded that they have encroached the land in
question and as such, to submit their show cause why the same is
not removed.
4. The details of the land is/are as follows:
Khata no.- 854;
khesra no.- 2035 under Semra, Piprasi,
West Champaran.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that admittedly, two
notices have been issued. Instead of replying to it, the petitioner
after the second notice served, rushed to the Court. The further
Patna High Court CWJC No.10551 of 2025(4) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
submission is that though pleadings show that the Bihar State
Religious Trust Board has an active role to play in the matter,
surprisingly, it has not been made party respondent.
6. This Court has taken note of the two notices. The
petitioner failed to reply to the said notice by filing show cause.
He has all the power in the world to put forward his case along
with the supporting documents so that the Circle Officer, Piprasi
takes a decision in the matter.
7. As rightly pointed out by learned State Counsel that
the Circle Officer, Piprasi too slept over the matter after the two
notices served upon the petitioner and it is not the case of the
petitioners that he/she took further steps.
8. In that background, if fresh notice comes and/or any
reminder is sent by the Circle Officer, Piprasi, the petitioners are
well advised to reply to the said show cause notice and satisfy the
respondent regarding their claim over the land which according to
them is an ancestral property.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…