Patna High Court
Abul KalamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that a writ under Article 226 may be entertained despite the existence of an alternate remedy where fundamental rights are infringed or natural justice is violated, and ordered the Circle Officer to appear before the District Magistrate‑Collector for verification of records.
Summary
The petitioner, Abul Kalam, claimed ownership of a house, shop and land in Begusarai and alleged that local authorities were proceeding with demolition despite a temporary injunction and his title documents. He filed a representation with the Circle Officer, who deemed the land Gair Majarua Khas and proceeded with demolition without notice, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to restrain the demolition and to have his documents verified. The State argued that the petition was inadmissible because the petitioner had an effective civil remedy. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents allowing writ jurisdiction where fundamental rights are infringed or natural justice is denied, even if an alternate remedy exists, and directed the Circle Officer to appear before the District Magistrate‑Collector for verification and appropriate orders. The application was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an alternative civil remedy is available.
- Whether violation of natural justice and imminent demolition constitute a breach of fundamental rights justifying writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing verification of title documents and restraining demolition.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- fundamental rights
- natural justice
- mandamus
- land encroachment
- temporary injunction
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1145 of 2026
======================================================
Abul Kalam Son of Late Md. Yusuf, Resident of Village- Thakurichak, P.S-
Barauni, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the District Magistrate, District- Begusarai.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, District- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
3. The Block Development Officer, Block- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
4. The Circle Officer, Barauni, District- Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shaishav Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : AC to Government Pleader (02)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
Heard Mr. Shaishav Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned AC to
Government Pleader (02) for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia the following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“That in the present writ application the
petitioner prays for following reliefs: -
Ⅰ) For issuance of an appropriate direction,
order, or writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding
the respondents to dispose of the representation dated
30.12.2025, as contained in Annexure-P 3 of this writ
application, and further directing the respondents not to
interfere with or disturb the petitioner's possession over
his house, shop, and land situated at Mauza Thakurchak,
Thana No. 480, Khata Nos51 and 56, including multiple
plots (Khesra Nos.164 and 166), District Begusarai,
until due verification of the petitioner’s ancestral
property documents is done by them.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1145 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
2/6
II) For any other relief/reliefs to which the
petitioner can be found entitled to, in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
claims ownership and possession over a house, ration shop and
land situated at Mauza Thakurchak, Thana No. 480, Khata Nos.
51 and 56, including Plot (Khesra) Nos. 164 and 166, District
Begusarai, supported by valid title documents. It is alleged that
certain local residents attempted to encroach upon the
petitioner’s land on 20.12.2025 by placing construction
materials thereon and, upon objection, threatened the petitioner
with demolition of his house and ration shop under the guise of
an anti-encroachment drive. Finding no alternative remedy, the
petitioner submitted an application dated 24.12.2025 before the
Circle Officer, Barauni, seeking measurement of the land and
removal of the alleged encroachment. It is the petitioner’s case
that without verifying the relevant revenue records and title
documents, the Circle Officer opined that the land in question
was Gair Majarua Khas land over which the petitioner has build
his house and shop. The petitioner has relied upon a subsisting
order of a temporary injunction dated 30.08.2019, passed in
Title Suit No. 46 of 1998, wherein, the State of Bihar is a
defendant. However, the Circle Officer allegedly proceeded with
Patna High Court CWJC No.1145 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
3/6
proposed demolition actions notwithstanding the said
injunction. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation
dated 30.12.2025 before Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 seeking an
opportunity to produce his original documents, but no action
was taken. It is alleged that demolition activities have
commenced in the locality without issuance of notice to the
petitioner, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of imminent
demolition of his house and ration shop. Aggrieved by the
inaction of the authorities and the alleged violation of principles
of natural justice, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner
seeks to file a fresh representation before the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Begusarai for the reliefs as prayed
for in the present writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submitted that the petitioner on the basis of an order
dated 30.08.2019 passed in Title Suit no. 46 of 1998, by which
Temporary Injunction has been granted to the plaintiff. The
petitioner by availing remedy before the competent civil court
has filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable in
view of remedy availed before the learned District Court.
6. Heard the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1145 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
4/6
7. It is well settled principle of law that High Courts
should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India if an effective and efficacious remedy is
available. Taking into the circumstances of the present case
where fundamental/constitutional right of a citizen is infringed,
this Court must not fail to exercise its power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
8. The law in this regard has been laid down by the
Apex Court in the Case of M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd.
Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in LL 2021 SC 495,
paragraphs no. 19 and 28 would be relevant in this regard,
which is as under:-
“ 19. While a High Court would normally not
exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy
is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not
by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction
in certain contingencies. This principle has been
crystallized by this Court in Whirpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai19 and Harbanslal Sahni
v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd20. Recently, in Radha
Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors21 a
two judge Bench of this Court of which one of us was a part
of (Justice DY Chandrachud) has summarized the
principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the
High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy. This
Court has observed:
“28. The principles of law which emerge are
that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to
issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii)
The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ
petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the
High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is
available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the
rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition
Patna High Court CWJC No.1145 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
5/6
has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right
protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been
a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order
or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the
vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy
by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case
though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained
when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right
or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of
statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed
questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline
jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is
objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy
requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view
would not readily be interfered with.” (emphasis supplied)
9. The Circle Officer is directed to appear before the
District Magistrate – cum – Collector on 16.02.2026 along with
the petitioner, so that, both of them can present their case before
the District Magistrate – cum – Collector. The District
Magistrate – cum – Collector upon verification of the record and
giving opportunity to the parties must pass a reasoned order by
directing the concerned authority to take action in accordance
with law.
10. In case the District Magistrate – cum – Collector
upon examination of records finds that the Circle Officer has
intentionally harassed the petitioner and fundamental right has
been violated, the action is required to be taken in accordance
with law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1145 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
6/6
11. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…