Patna High Court

Janardan PanditversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 28 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SOURENDRA PANDEY

Holding

The Court held that there was no illegality in the orders of the Collector and the Bihar Land Tribunal and therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioners, heirs of the late Sokhi Pandit, claimed ownership of land in Madhepura district and alleged that respondent No.8 obtained a Basgit Parcha in his wife's name through forgery and collusion with a Circle Officer. They challenged the Collector's order of 5 January 2019, which upheld the Basgit Parcha, and the Bihar Land Tribunal's dismissal of their revision petition on 21 October 2021, seeking a writ of certiorari under Article 226. The State and other respondents argued that the Basgit Parcha was lawfully issued to a privileged person and that the petitioners had not produced any title documents. The Court examined the RTI response, the lack of documentary evidence from the petitioners, and the fact that the title suit filed by them was dismissed for default. Concluding that the dispute was a matter of title and that the lower authorities had acted within law, the Court found no illegality in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

The legality of the Collector's order dated 5 January 2019 affirming the Basgit Parcha issued to respondent No.8.
Whether the Bihar Land Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioners' revision petition on 21 October 2021 was perverse or illegal.
Whether the petitioners have a valid title claim over the disputed land sufficient to sustain a writ under Article 226.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. Section 144
Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

land dispute
Basgit Parcha
title and possession
writ petition
Article 226
Land reforms
Privileged person
Right to Information Act
Section 144 CrPC
Bihar Land Tribunal

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11223 of 2022
======================================================
1. Janardan Pandit, Son of Late Saukhi Pandit;
2. Chandeshwari Pandit, Son of Late Saukhi Pandit;
3. Gannilal Pandit, Son of Late Saukhi Pandit;
All are resident of Village - Mohanpur, Ward No. 12, P.S. - Bihariganj,
District - Madhepura.
4. Mukesh Pandit, Son of Late Mohan Pandit, resident of Village - Mohanpur,
Ward No. 12, P.S. - Bihariganj, District - Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioners, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
4. The Additional Collector, Madhepura.
5. The D.C.L.R., Udakishunganj, District - Madhepura.
6. The Circle Officer, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.
7. The Circle Officer, Bihariganj, Madhepura.
8. Yogendra Pandit, S/o Late Sahdeo Pandit, resident of Village - Mohanpur,
Nisph, Ward No. 12, Block - Udakishunganj, P.O. and P.S. - Bihariganj,
District - Madhepura.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to GP-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-04-2026

The present writ application, under Article 226 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11223 of 2022 dt.28-04-2026
2/10

the Constitution of India, has been filled seeking following

relief(s):

(i) For issuances of writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 passed by Sanjay
Priya, the Hon'ble the Chairman of the Bihar Land
Tribunal, Patna passed in B.L.T. Case no.280 /2019
(Mohan Pandit and others Vrs. The State of Bihar and
others) whereby and where under the B.L.T. Case
no.280/2019 filed by the petitioner and others have been
dismissed and affirming the impugned order dated
5.1.2019 passed by the learned Collector, Madhepura
passed in Basgit Parcha Revisional Case no.10/2017 by
which he has affirm the order passed in Basgit Parcha case
no.428/1973-74 has also been affirm and directed the
petitioner will be a liberty to file the civil suit before the
competent of Civil Court to declaration of right, title and
possession over the disputed land.
(ii) For further the petitioner has challenging the
order impugned dated 5.1.2019 passed in Basgit Parcha
Revision Case no.10/2017( Mohan Pandit and another Vrs.
Yogendra Pandit and others) passed by the District
Magistrate cum-Collector Madhepura in which the Basgit
Parcha Revision Case no.10 /2017 filed by the petitioner
and others has been rejected and affirming the Basgit
Parcha case No.428/1973-74 issued on dt.17.2.1975 issued
by the Circle Officer, Udakishunganj, District Madhepura
in which the petitioners praying for set-aside the Basgit
Parcha revision case no.10/2017 passed under order dated
5.1.2019 may be quashed.
(iii) For further the petitioner seeking the quashing
action the Basgit Parcha case no.428/1973-74 issued on
dated 17.2.1975 issued by the Circle Officer,
Udakishunganj, District Madhepura in favour of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11223 of 2022 dt.28-04-2026
3/10

respondent no.7 may kindly be quashed.
(iv) For further any other relief/reliefs, order/orders,
direction/directions, may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of this case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ

application is to the effect that the land in question belonged to

Late Sokhi/Saukhi Pandit. The R. S. Khatiyaan was prepared in

the name of the father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Late

Sokhi/Saukhi Pandit. After the death of their father, the

petitioners came into possession over the said land. The house

of the petitioners was constructed over the said land and the

petitioners are not only residing in the said house with their

family members, but they are also in possession of the

remaining land which is situated around their residential house.

The title and possession of the petitioners are not disputed and

never interfered with, but, in the meantime, respondent No. 8

filed a petition for obtaining Basgit Parcha in the name of his

wife, namely, Thethari Devi, and in collusion with the Circle

Officer, respondent No. 8 obtained the Parcha of the said land

on 17.02.1975.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that after the death of the father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11223 of 2022 dt.28-04-2026
4/10

namely, Late Sokhi/Saukhi Pandit, the petitioners came in

possession of the said land and were enjoying the peaceful

possession thereof. It has next been submitted that the

petitioners were paying the rent of the said land and receipts

were received by them regularly from the Government. It has

further been submitted that respondent No. 8 tried to dispossess

them while there is already a Jamabandi, bearing No. 561, in

favour of Late Sokhi/Saukhi Pandit. It has next been submitted

that all the heirs of Thethari Devi, the wife of Late Sahdeo

Pandit, came over the land and they threatened the petitioners to

dispossess them.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that respondent No. 8 has obtained the Basgit Parcha by

committing forgery under the garb of the Bihar Privileged

Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. It has next been submitted

that the petitioners approached the Circle Officer, Bihariganj,

Madhepura under the Right to Information Act, in which, they

prayed for supply of the certified copy of Basgit Parcha Case

No. 428/1973-74, however, an information was received on

25.05.2015, communicating them that there is no Basgit Parcha

granted in favour of respondent No. 8 in respect of the said land.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners next
Patna High Court CWJC No.11223 of 2022 dt.28-04-2026
5/10

submits that respondent No. 8 does not fall within the category

of “Privileged Person” because he has got Khatiyani land, which

is of 32 decimals before Basgit Parcha Case No. 428/1973-

1974. It has next been submitted that on 12.06.2015, petitioner

Nos. 3 and 4 received notice of Misc. Case No. 483/2015 under

Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short

the Cr.P.C.), which was issued by the S.D.M. Udakishunganj,

District - Madhepura in respect of the said land with a direction

to the petitioners to file their show-cause notice in respect to the

said land under Mauja-Mohanpur, Nisph, Thana No. 227, Khata

No. 561, Khesra Nos. 1810 and 1811, Area 3 decimals, bounded

as North - Yogendra Pandit, South - Gani Pandit, East -

Yogendra Pandit and West - Khesra No. 1810, which is the part

land of Schedule No. ‘A’. The petitioners obtained the certified

copies of the entire order-sheets of Misc. Case No. 483/2015

under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and then they got knowledge about

the claim of respondent No. 8 in respect of Case No. 428/1973-

74.

7. It has been submitted that the petitioners filed an

application before the Collector, Madhepura through Revision

Case No. 10/2017, challenging the order dated 15.02.1975

passed by the Circle Officer, Bihariganj, Madhepura. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.11223 of 2022 dt.28-04-2026
6/10

Collector, Madhepura dismissed the said revision application on

05.01.2019.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners next

submits that they being dissatisfied with the order dated

05.01.2019, passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,

Madhepura, preferred a case by way of B.L.T. Case No.

280/2019 under the provisions of Sections 9 and 14 of the Bihar

Land Tribunal Act, 2009. The said case was dismissed on

21.10.2021.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents-State,

referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent

Nos. 3 to 7, submits that the father of petitioner No. 4, namely,

Late Mohan Pandit filed a Basgit Parcha Revision Case No.

10/2017 against respondent No. 08, namely, Yogendra Pandit

and others in the Court of Collector-Cum-District Magistrate,

Madhepura and challenged the Basgit Parcha Case No.

428/1973-74. It has next been submitted that after hearing the

parties, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate rejected the said

petition and held that the Parcha was issued as per law and the

Circle Officer, Udakishunganj, Madhepura was directed to make

the measurement of the Parcha land properly. It has further

been submitted that being aggrieved by the order of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11223 of 2022 dt.28-04-2026
7/10

Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Madhepura dated

05.01.2019, the petitioners moved before the Bihar Land

Tribunal, Patna (in short the B.L.T., Patna) vide B.L.T. Case No.

280/2019, in which, the B.L.T, Patna, after hearing both the

parties, affirmed the order passed by the Collector-cum-District

Magistrate and dismissed the petition on 21.10.2021.

10. It has lastly been submitted by the learned

counsel for the respondents-State that specific averment has

been repeatedly made in the petition, stating that the Parcha,

vide Basgit Parcha Case No. 428/1973-74, issued by the Circle

Officer, Udakishunganj, Madhepura, in the name of the mother

of private respondent No.8, is in accordance with law.

11. The learned counsel for respondent No. 8,

referring to the counter affidavit filed on his behalf, submits that

his parents were in service of Late Sokhi/Saukhi Pandit, who

had allowed the parents of respondent No. 8 to construct the

residential houses over the Basgit Parcha land, measuring 3

decimals. It has next been submitted that the name of Late

Thithari Devi had been mutated in respect to the Basgit Parcha

land vide Jamabandi No. 272 in the ‘Sherista’ of the State of

Bihar in the year 1975 and since then rent receipts are being

obtained regularly.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11223 of 2022 dt.28-04-2026
8/10

12. The learned counsel for respondent No. 8

submits that the Basgit Parcha was in the name of her mother,

who fell in the category of a “Privileged Person”, as she did not

possess any land. It has been submitted that the petitioners are

trying to dispossess respondent No. 8 without any documentary

evidence of their title over the land in question and the

allegation of dispossessing is completely false.

13. The learned counsel for respondent No. 8 and

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State

have stated that from perusal of the information given to the

petitioners on their application under the R.T.I. Act, it would be

evident that there is some interpolation in the information which

makes the document suspicious and as such, it cannot be relied

upon and barring the said document, there is nothing on record

to show the title of the petitioners over the said land.

14. Having heard the parties and taking into

account the relevant facts that the petitioners have placed

reliance on the information received by the Circle Officer,

Bihariganj, Madhepura, under the R.T.I. Act, dated 25.05.2015,

stating that no Basgit Parcha has been granted in favour of

respondent No. 8; besides this, there is no other document

produced on behalf of the petitioners to claim their title over the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11223 of 2022 dt.28-04-2026
9/10

land in question. It is mentioned in the order of the learned

Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Madhepura that the families

of Parcha holders are residing over the Parcha land after

constructing their houses. The rent receipt(s) has also been

issued with respect to the aforesaid land of Parcha holder vide

Jamabandi No. 272 in the name of Thethri Devi till 2015-16.

The B.L.T., Patna has mentioned in the order that submission

was made before it on behalf of the Parcha holder that a

Panchayati was held with respect to the disputed land on

07.04.2015 and 12.04.2015 by the village Panches, whereby the

Basgit Parcha land was measured and demarcated. The

aforesaid Panchnama bears signatures of the petitioners also.

The petitioners have also filed Title Suit No. 47 of 2016 before

the learned Sub-Judge-I, Madhepura, which was initially

pending, but in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the

petitioners before the Tribunal, during the course of the hearing,

it has been stated that the Title Suit has been dismissed for

default by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Madhepura vide order dated

19.07.2017.

15. I am also of the view that the writ petitioners

have not approached this Court with clean hands as when the

original copy of the reply to R.T.I. was asked to be produced,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11223 of 2022 dt.28-04-2026
10/10

the learned counsel for the petitioners showed his inability,

which further cast shadow over the credibility of such

document, as some over-writing was apparent on the same.

16. The dispute between the parties is primarily of

Title, which the petitioners are disputing against respondent No.

8 and, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in observing that

there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the

authorities concerned and the learned B.L.T., Patna, referred to

above, and, therefore, no interference is required with the same.

17. Finding no merit in this writ petition, the same

is, accordingly, dismissed.

18. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of accordingly.

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 01.05.2026
Transmission Date N/A

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…