Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Birendra Kumar and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The petition is infructuous due to the change in pre‑emption law, and therefore the writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of heirs and relatives, filed a writ petition challenging several orders relating to a pre‑emption case and ceiling revisions concerning a parcel of land in Nawada district. They sought to set aside the Tribunal’s order that had annulled earlier orders of the Commissioner, Gaya and the Collector, Nawada, and also to uphold the Collector’s ceiling appeal order while directing the transfer of land to them. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and various officials, opposed these reliefs. The court observed that a change in the law governing pre‑emption matters rendered the petition’s reliefs moot. Consequently, the writ petition was declared infructuous and disposed of, with any deposited amount ordered to be returned.

Issues considered

  • Whether the orders of the Tribunal, Commissioner, and Collector can be set aside in light of the changed pre‑emption law
  • Whether the Collector’s ceiling appeal order should be upheld
  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to the transfer of land

Subjects

  • pre-emption
  • land ceiling
  • revision
  • appeal
  • writ petition
  • infructuous
  • land transfer

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11757 of 2014
                 ======================================================
           1.     Birendra Kumar Son of Late Sidho Singh @ Sidheshwar Singh
           2.    Subodh Kumar Son of Late Sidho Singh @ Sidheshwar Singh
           3.    Sanjeet Kumar Son of Late Sidho Singh @ Sidheshwar Singh
           4.    Manoj Kumar Son of Late Bakhori Singh All 1 to 4 are resident of village-
                 Arian, P.O- Siswan, P.S and Anchal, Hisua, District- Nawada.
           5.    Geeta Devi Wife of Kundan Singh and daughter of Late Bakhori Singh
                 Resident of Village- Dakhingaon, P.O and P.S- Wazirganj, Distt- Gaya.
           6.    Smt. Krishna Devi Wife of Ramswaroop Singh and daughter of Late
                 Bakhori Singh Resident of village Aanti, PO- Kadirganj, PS- Nawada, Town,
                 Distt- Nawada.

                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.    The State Of Bihar.
           2.    The Commissioner, Gaya, District- Gaya.
           3.    The Collector, Nawada, Distt- Nawada.
           4.    The Deputy Collector Land Reforms,Nawada, Distt- Nawada.
           5.    Jitendra Singh S/o Late Sidheshwar Singh
           6.    Dipendra Singh Son of Late Sidheshwar Singh
           7.    Surendra Singh Son of Late Sidheshwar Singh
           8.    Most. Bachchi Devi Wife of Saudagar Singh Respondent No. 5 to 8 are
                 resident of Village- Arian, P.O- Siswan, P.S and Anchal- Hisua, Distt-
                 Nawada.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :    Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :    Mrs. GP28- Geeta Kumari
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   13-01-2026                 Heard the parties.

                               2. The present petition has been preferred for the

                   following relief(s):

                                            “i. To set aside the order dt. 24/03/2014

                                  passed by the learned Chairman, The Bihar land
Patna High Court CWJC No.11757 of 2014(4) dt.13-01-2026
                                            2/3




                          Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No.-81 of 2013

                          whereby and whereunder the learned chairman of

                          the Tribunal set aside the order dt. 21/06/2012

                          passed by the learned Commissioner, Gaya in

                          Ceiling Revision Case No.- 22 of 2009 and the

                          order dt. 30/06/2009 passed by the learned

                          collector, Nawada in Ceiling Appeal No.- 26 (R) of

                          2008 and further the learned Chairman of the

                          Tribunal upheld the order dt. 10-10-07/24-10-2007

                          Passed by the DCLR, Nawada in pre-emption Case

                          No.- 18/2006-07 filed by these petitioners.

                                      ii. To set aside the order dt. 10-10-

                          2007/24-10-2007 passed by the learned DCLR,

                          NAWADA whereby pre-emption case No.- 18/2006-

                          07 filed by these petitioners was dismissed.

                                      iii. To upheld the order dt. 30/06/2009

                          passed by the learned collector, Nawada in Ceiling

                          Appeal No.- 26 (R)of 2008, which was preferred by

                          the appellant/petitioners, whereby the order dt. 10-

                          10-07 / 24-10-2007 Passed by the DCLR, Nawada

                          in pre-emption Case No.- 18/2006-07 was quashed

                          with direction to take appropriate action within
          Patna High Court CWJC No.11757 of 2014(4) dt.13-01-2026
                                                      3/3




                                    three weeks in compliance of the aforesaid order.

                                                iv. To upheld the order dt 21/06/2012

                                    passed by the learned Commissioner, Gaya in

                                    Ceiling Revision Case No.- 22 of 2009, which was

                                    preferred by the Respondents Nos.- 5 to 7, wherein

                                    the learned commissioner did not interfere as the

                                    order passed in revision is based on facts and law.

                                                v. To direct the respondents concerned to

                                    ensure the transfer of land be made in favour of the

                                    petitioners.”

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that with

                    the change of law relating to pre-emption matter, the case has

                    become infructuous.

                                4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as

                    infructuous.

                                5. The amount, if deposited, has to be returned.



                                                  (Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.