Patna High Court
Mithilesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to approach the civil court for relief.
Summary
Mithilesh Kumar claimed ownership of a plot in Bodhgawan and sought demarcation and fixing of pucca pillars under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009. The Deputy Collector rejected his petition for lack of documentary proof, a decision affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner who also noted that a measurement had already been carried out. The petitioner appealed to the Bihar Land Tribunal, which likewise dismissed the case and directed the parties to approach the civil court. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of all three orders and a direction for demarcation. The High Court observed that all authorities arrived at a concurrent finding that the petitioner failed to produce any supporting document and therefore could not grant relief. It held that the petitioner must pursue his claim in the appropriate civil court and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders of the Deputy Collector, Divisional Commissioner and Bihar Land Tribunal can be quashed on the ground of lack of documentary evidence
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to land demarcation and fixing of pucca pillars without producing supporting documents
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition when the remedy lies in a civil court
Subjects
- land dispute
- demarcation
- writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act
- civil court
- quashing order
- land ownership
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12589 of 2016
======================================================
Mithilesh Kumar Son of Sri Harinandan Rai, Resident of Village -
Bodhgawan, P.S. Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Land Reforms, Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
4. The Collector, Patna District, Patna.
5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Patna Sadar, Patna.
6. The Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna.
7. Kamta Rai Son of late Sita Ram Rai, Resident of Village Bodhgawan, P.S. -
Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
8. Asharfi Rai Son of Late Sita Ram Rai, Resident of Village Bodhgawan, P.S.
- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
9. Rinku Rai Son of Sri Kamta Rai, Resident of Village Bodhgawan, P.S. -
Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.A. Alam, SC-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) For quashing of the order dated
13.04.2016 passed by the learned Bihar Land
Tribunal, Patna in BLT case no. 827 of 2014
whereby and whereunder the Learned Tribunal
has dismissed the application filed by the
petitioner against the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.12589 of 2016(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/4
22.08.2013/19.12.2013 passed by the Learned
Divisional Commissioner, Patna and against
the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the
Learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms
Sadar Patna by which the petition filed by the
petitioner for demarcation of his land and
fixing of pucca pillar was dismissed.
ii. For quashing of the order dated
22.08.2013/19.12.2013 passed by the Learned
Divisional Commissioner, Patna in Land
Dispute Appeal No. 259 of 2013 by which the
appeal against the order of D.C.L.R. Sadar
Patna has been dismissed.
iii. For quashing of the order dated
16.05.2013, passed by the Learned Deputy
Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna in case
No. 133 of 2011-12 by which the petition filed
by the petitioner, under section 4 of the Bihar
Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 for
demarcation of his land was rejected.
iv. For issuance of an
order/writ/direction of the respondents to get
the land of the petitioner demarcated by fixing
pucca pillars after measurement of the same.
v. For any other relief or reliefs
which your lordships may deem just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
3. The matter relates to a piece of land with following
details:
Patna High Court CWJC No.12589 of 2016(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/4
Khata No. 49;
Plot No.-732;
Area – 4 katha 12 dhurs,
at Basant Chak, Bodhgawan under
Phulwarisharif, Patna.
4. The petitioner claims the wnership right and this led
to Land Dispute Resolution Case No. 133 of 2011-12 (Mithilesh
Kumar vs. Kamta Rai and Anr.).
5. It was disposed of on 14.05.2013 (Annexure-3 to the
writ petition) by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms,
Patna rejecting the claim on the ground that the petitioner failed to
provide any document in support of his case.
6. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved before the
Divisional Commissioner, Patna in Land Dispute Appeal No.
259 of 2013 which again was dismissed on 22.08.2013/19.12.2013
and the Divisional Commissioner also recorded that not only the
petitioner failed to provide document, a measurement has already
been done by the Circle Officer earlier (Annexure-4).
7. This followed the filing of BLT Case No. 827 of
2014 before the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna (henceforth for
short ‘the Tribunal’). The same came to be dismissed on 1st
March, 2016 and ‘the Tribunal’ chose not to interfere with the
reasoned orders of the learned DCLR as also the Divisional
Commissioner allowing the parties to move before the Competent
Civil Court for the redressal of the grievance.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12589 of 2016(2) dt.10-02-2026
4/4
8. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he has valid document, learned State Counsel counters it and
submits that the concurrent finding is that he failed to produce any
document.
9. Considering the fact that the DCLR, Patna Sadar the
Divisional Commissioner, Patna and ‘the BLT’ came to a
concurrent finding, in that background, no relief can be granted to
the petitioner on the simple ground that he failed to provide a
single chit of paper to support the claim. If ever, he gets the hold
of any document, can knock the door of the revenue authority for
the needful and not otherwise.
10. It is high time that the petitioner takes the route to
Civil Court for the redressal of grievances.
11. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…