Patna High Court
Md. SayeedversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition cannot be entertained as the land is sub‑judice and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is free from dispute, thus no mandamus is issued.
Summary
Petitioner Md. Sayeed filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State authorities to accept his sale deed of 18 decimal land (Khata No.60, Khesra No.493) which had been denied on the ground of a stay order in the earlier case of Azima Khatoon v. Md. Iliyas (M.A. No.65/2009). He contended that the stay covered only half of the 36‑decimal parcel and that he owned the remaining 18 decimal free of any litigation. The respondents pointed out that the land was also involved in a pending title suit (No.498 of 2012) and that the petitioner had not shown that his portion was outside the dispute. The Court observed that the matter was sub‑judice, the petitioner failed to establish that the land was not part of the pending suits, and therefore directed him to approach the appropriate revenue authority with full documentation. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents are obligated to accept the petitioner’s sale deed despite the stay order in the earlier case.
- Whether the land claimed by the petitioner is free from the pendency of the title suit No.498 of 2012.
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing revenue authorities to register the sale deed in the circumstances.
Subjects
- land revenue
- stay order
- mandamus
- sub judice
- mutation
- sale deed
- property dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11467 of 2025
======================================================
Md. Sayeed Son of Late Abdul Gafoor, Resident of Village- Kanhauli
Bishundutt, Sahni Tolla, P.S.- MIthanpura, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue,
Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
3. The Registrar, Registry Department of Land, Muzaffarpur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
4. The Circle Officer, Mushary, Block- Mushary Muzaffarur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Yugal Kishore, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 30-03-2026 Heard Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) for issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of Mandamus Commanding
the Respondent Authorities to consider the
case of the petitioner for accepted the sale
deed executed by petitioner, in favour of one
Md. Imroj vide dated 05.06.2024, (Annexure-
P/4) which was earlier denied by respondent
no.-3 on the ground that there is stay over the
land bearing Khata no.-60 Khesra no.-493,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11467 of 2025(3) dt.30-03-2026
2/4
area 18 decimal of Mauja- Damodarpur,
Halka-Bara jagarnath, Thana- Ahiyapur,
Thana no. 674, District Muzaffarpur, vide
order dated 14.01.13 passed in M.A No.
65/2009 “Azima Khatoon Versus Md. Iliyas
and Ors" (Annexure-P/3) and while passing
the same, the respondents failed to consider
fact that Khata no. 60 Khesra no.- 493 has
total area 36 decimal land and the petitioner
has purchased 18 decimals of land of Khata
no.-60 Khesra no.-493, Mauja- Damodarpur
Halka- Bara jagarnath, Thana- Ahiyapur,
Thana no. 674, district -Muzaffarpur in his
name as well as in name of his wife
accordingly mutation has created in the name
of petitioner as well as his wife vide Mutation
no. 231 and 232. and also failed to consider
that in administrative case no. 8/2008
(annexure-P/2) the petitioner is not party in
the suit, nor any way the petitioner is related
with Azima Khatoon and Administrative case
has been filed only for area of 18 Decimals
land of Khata no. 60 Khesra no. 493.
(ii) For issuance of a direction in
nature of mandamus to the respondents to
verify the total area of Khata no.-60 Khesra
no.-493, Mauja- Damodarpur, Halka- Bara
jagarnath, Thana-Ahiyapur, Thana no.
674,district- Muzaffarpur and if it is found that
the claim of Petitioner is just proper and legal
then the respondents should accept the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11467 of 2025(3) dt.30-03-2026
3/4
execution of sale deed, executed by the
petitioner to any other person as there is no
any stay over the land is question as stated
above.
(iii) Any/or other Order or orders
may be passed as your lordship may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case be granted to the Petitioner.
3. The matter relates to a piece of land having Khata
No. 60, Khesra no.- 493, area- 18 decimal under Pushary P.S. and
Circle, district- Muzaffarpur.
4. The claim is that it has been purchased in the year
1989 and 18 out of 36 decimal was purchased but it could not be
executed as there is a stay in M.A. No. 65 of 2009 (Azima
Khatoon vs. Md. Iliyas & ors.).
5. The submission of Mr. Yugal Kishore is that the total
land is 36 decimal; stay is only for 18 decimal, he owns rest of the
18 decimal but due to confusion, no further step is being taken by
the respondents.
6. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the State-
respondent duly signed by the Circle Officer, Mushary,
Muzaffarpur according to which, despite knowledge of the
pendency of M.A. No. 65 of 2009, Azima Khatoon has not even
been put in the list of respondents. Further, a Title Suit No. 498 of
2012 is also pending before the learned Sub-Judge-VIII, East,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11467 of 2025(3) dt.30-03-2026
4/4
Muzaffarpur.
7. This Court has taken note of the fact that the matter is
sub judice, the petitioner has failed to provide any details as to
whether the land in question is part of the title suit or free from
any litigation. In that background, he is well advised to approach
the appropriate revenue authority along with all the supporting
documents where those fighting the Title Suit No. 498 of 2012
shall also be noticed to come to a conclusion whether the land of
the petitioner is part of the said title suit or not.
8. If it is found that the petitioner’s land is not the
disputed land and/or part of litigation, thereafter, if any fee is
deposited along with proper prayer, the respondents can take steps
for the measurement of the land and pass necessary order.
9. The second step is to be undertaken only if the
respondents come to the conclusion that the land which the
petitioner claims is not under any dispute.
10. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…