Patna High Court

Khalilur RahmanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 5 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court ordered the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector to take action to protect the petitioner’s property, finding that the State’s failure to safeguard the constitutional right to property warranted the issuance of the writ.

Summary

The petitioner, Khalilur Rahman, claimed ownership of a 0.14‑decimal land parcel in Katihar, purchased by a registered deed in 1965 and recorded in the revenue records. He alleged that neighbouring occupants (respondents 9‑27) were unlawfully disturbing his peaceful possession and that various state officials, including the District Magistrate and police, failed to intervene. Relying on the constitutional guarantee of property rights under Article 300‑A, he sought a writ directing the authorities to protect his land and restrain further interference. The Court held that the State’s inaction violated the petitioner’s constitutional right and therefore issued a writ directing the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector to take immediate protective action. The writ petition was disposed of, granting the relief sought.

Issues considered

Whether the State authorities’ failure to act infringes the petitioner’s right to property under Article 300‑A of the Constitution.
Whether a writ can be issued directing the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector to protect the petitioner’s possession and restrain encroachment.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection despite not being formally dispossessed.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 300-A

Subjects

right to property
Article 300-A
writ jurisdiction
encroachment
due process
land dispute
Bihar

Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10813 of 2021
     ======================================================
     Khalilur Rahman Son of Late Safar Mahummad Resident of village- Ganjan,
     P.o.- Barsoiand, District- Katihar

                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                    Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
     Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2.   The Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, patna
3.   The District Magistrate, Katihar
4.   The Superintendent of Police, Katihar
5.   The Sub Divisional Officer, Barsoi, Katihar
6.   The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barsoi, Katihar
7.   The Circle Officer, Barsoi, District- Katihar
8.   The S.H.O. Barsoi, Katihar
9.   Md. Sakur Son of Chainuddin
10. Muhmmad Majo Son of Chainuddin
11. Latif Son of Chainuddin
12. Samsul Haque Son of Chainuddin
13. Jamshed Ali Son of Jumar Ali
14. Md. Haroon Son of Jumar Ali
15. Jahrul Son of Jumar Ali
16. Md. Jamiruddin Son of Namiruddin
17. Md. Samrul Son of Namiruddin
18. Jer Mahamad Son of Namiruddin
19. Mohbud Son of Gayasuddin
20. Abba Son of Gayasuddin
21. Anwara Khatun Wife of Md. Sakur
22. Saleka Khatun Wife of Jamshed Ali
23. Sarbanoo Khatun Wife of Haroon
24. Raijina Khatun Wife of Latif
25. Saleka Khatun Wife of Muhammad Majo
26. Muhmmad Rahim Son of Basiruddin
27. Sukojan Wife of Md. Rahim
    Resident Nos. 9 to 27 are resident of Gondhara, P.o.- Ganjan, P.s.- Barsoi
    and District- Katihar

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.10813 of 2021 dt.05-02-2026
                                           2/4




       Appearance :
       For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Binay Kumar, Advocate
       For the Respondent/s     :       Mr.Raj Kishore Roy ( Gp18 )
       ======================================================
       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
       ORAL JUDGMENT
         Date : 05-02-2026
                     Heard Mr. Binay Kumar, learned counsel appearing

         on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, learned GP

         18 for the State.

                        2.Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following

         reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:- :

                                         “(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ,
                         order or direction commanding the respondents to provide
                         protection to the petitioner in respect of his land mentioned
                         in this writ petition
                                         (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ,
                         order or direction restraining the respondents from
                         interfering in the peaceful possession and occupation in
                         respect of the land in question.
                                         (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ, order
                         or direction for grant of any other relief or reliefs which
                         may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
                         the case.”


                        3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

         petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of land,

         appertaining to Khata No.265, Khesra No.966, total area of 0.14

         decimals, situated in Mauza Gondhara, District, Katihar. The

         aforesaid land was purchased vide a registered sale deed dated

         09.04.1965 and the name of the petitioner has been mutated in

         the Anchal Sirista. Thereafter, the petitioner has been paying

         rent. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of his neighbours,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10813 of 2021 dt.05-02-2026
                                           3/4




         who are adamant to grab the land by taking law in their own

         hands. Petitioner has approached several authorities, like the

         District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Officer and police officials

         but they have not stopped the unauthorized action of the

         neighbours of the petitioner, who has been impleaded as

         respondents no.9 to 27 in the present writ petition. Petitioner has

         not admitted in the present writ petition that he has been

         dispossessed from the land in question, rather his neighbours are

         disturbing him from peaceful possession and are adamant to

         encroach the said land belonging to the petitioner.

                        4. In such circumstances, due process of law has to

         be taken into consideration by the District Magistrate-cum-

         Collector, Katihar and the authorities in the State of Bihar have

         totally failed to abide by the due process of law. The right to

         property as enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution of

         India mandates the State authorities to protect the rights of the

         petitioner, who is the lawful owner of the land, holding valid

         title on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1965. The

         District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Katihar is directed to

         forthwith take action in respect of the property of the petitioner

         in accordance with law after communication of this order to

         him.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.10813 of 2021 dt.05-02-2026
                                                        4/4




                                     5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.



                                                 (Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          13.02.2026
Transmission Date       NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…