Patna High Court
Suraj Mahto and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition is deemed infructuous and is dismissed.
Summary
Suraj Mahto and others filed a writ petition seeking to quash a 1971 order in a ceiling pre-emption case and to obtain mandamus directing respondents not to disturb their possession of several plots they have occupied since 1969. The petitioners argued that the order could not be executed after more than 43 years and that the land had been peacefully possessed and mutated in their favour. No counsel appeared for the petitioners, while the State counsel contended that the matter was a pre-emption issue and, owing to subsequent changes in law, had become infructuous. The court examined the lack of representation and the State's submission that the relief sought was no longer maintainable. Consequently, the court held that the petition could not proceed and dismissed it as infructuous. The order of the court was that the writ petition be disposed of as become infructuous.
Issues considered
- Whether the 1971 ceiling pre-emption order can be executed after a lapse of more than 43 years
- Whether the petition is maintainable in the absence of petitioner representation
- Whether changes in pre-emption law render the petition infructuous
Subjects
- pre-emption
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- limitation period
- land possession
- infructuous petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10565 of 2014
======================================================
Suraj Mahto and Anr.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-01-2026 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the common orders dated
20.3.2014 passed by the learned D.C.L.R., Sadar
Motihari in ceiling pre-emption case 3-4 of
1969-70 whereby and where under the
respondents 5 to 10 have been directed to submit
the draft sale deeds for execution of order dated
4.1.1971 Passed by the D.C.L.R., Motihari, after
lapse of more than 43 years without appreciating
the true aspects of the matter.
(ii) issuance of a consequential writ in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10565 of 2014(4) dt.19-01-2026
2/4
the nature of Mandamus directing and
commanding the Respondents not to interfere in
the peaceful possession of the petitioners over
plot no. 1737, 1907, 12104, 12635, 13289 and
11452 appertaining to khata no. 422 and plot no.
1775 appertaining to khata no. 11/1830 total
measuring an area one bigha 6 kathas 14 dhurs
and plot no. 1910 appertaining to khata no. 422
measuring an area 2 katha 13 dhurs which are in
possession of petitioners since January 1969 i.e.
since 45 years.
(iii) issuance of an appropriate
declaration that although order dated 4.1.1971
passed in ceiling pre-emption case no. 3/69 and
4/69 was in favour of Narayan Mahto but he had
left pursuation since 1973 and he had died on
9.7.84 and his legal heirs were not substituted
till July 1987 and in July 1987 after the case was
abated, one janakdhari Mahto, one of the sons of
original pre-emptor filed petition for execution
of order dated 4.1.71 but was rejected on 19.7.88
against which appeal no. 9 and 10 of 1988-89
Patna High Court CWJC No.10565 of 2014(4) dt.19-01-2026
3/4
was filed but was dismissed on 9.9.91 and thus
order could not be implemented for more than 20
years which cannot be executed now after more
than 43 years at the instance of Respondents 9
and 10 who were never impleaded party.
(iv) issuance of an appropriate
declaration that once the lands in question were
purchased by father of petitioners on 4.1.69 and
11.1.69 it came in peaceful possession of father
of petitioner in the month of January 1969 itself
and it was mutated without being objected, in
favour of petitioners' father and since then the
Land rent is being paid and after the death of
petitioners' father, petitioners are in possession
and their matter in pending before this Hon'ble
court at restoration stage there is no justification
to implement/execute the order dated 4.1.71 after
more than 43 years and thus the impugned order
is bad in law and it fit to be quashed.
(v) any other relief or reliefs be
granted to petitioners to which they are found to
be entitled to in accordance with law.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.10565 of 2014(4) dt.19-01-2026
4/4
3. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that it
is a preemption matter and with the change of law, it has
become infructuous.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as
become infructuous.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…