Patna High Court
Navin Kumar PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, directing the petitioners to approach the Circle Officer to conclude the pending petition within the stipulated time.
Summary
The petitioners, sons of the late Munilal Paswan, claimed that their father had been declared a Bataidar under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act in 2004 and that they themselves were entitled to be declared Kaimi raiyat under Section 48D because they had been in continuous cultivation for more than twelve years. They filed a petition in 2019 seeking such declaration, but the Circle Officer had not acted on it, and a mutation case filed by a purchaser remained pending. The petitioners argued that the delay violated their right to property and their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court observed that the revenue authorities had failed to progress the matter despite requests for reports and directed the petitioners to approach the Circle Officer within four weeks to have the pending petition concluded, with the entire process to be completed within six months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with the court’s observation directing further administrative action.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to be declared Kaimi raiyat under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act.
- Whether the Circle Officer is duty bound to pass an order on the petition and dismiss the mutation case filed by the purchaser.
- Whether the delay in adjudicating the petition infringes the petitioners' fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Tenancy Act — s. 48D, 48E
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Subjects
- Bihar Tenancy Act
- Section 48D
- Section 48E
- Kaimi raiyat
- Bataidar
- mutation
- property rights
- Article 21
- fundamental rights
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13483 of 2023
======================================================
1. Navin Kumar Paswan Son of Late Munilal Paswan, Resident of Village-
Khudra, Airpur Hardas, P.S.-Rautra, District-Katihar.
2. Arjun Paswan Son of Late Munilal Paswan, Resident of Village- Khudra,
Airpur Hardas, P.S.-Rautra, District-Katihar.
3. Barun Kumar Paswan @ Barun Pasvan Son of Late Munilal Paswan,
Resident of Village- Khudra, Airpur Hardas, P.S.-Rautra, District-Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Katihar.
3. The Circle Officer, Korha (District-Katihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan (SC-25)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
I. For that the petitioners' father Late
Munilal Paswan was declared as Bataidar Under
Section 48 E of B.T. Act regarding lands consisting
the plots in Order dated 4.11.04 holding that he
was cultivating the land as Bataidar since 47 years
back but on coming to the knowledge about filing
of a petition for mutation before Respondent No.3
Patna High Court CWJC No.13483 of 2023(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/4
without impleading the petitioners as parties in
said petition, the petitioners filed aforesaid petition
dated 16.1.2019 Under Section 48 D of B.T. Act on
the ground that the petitioners are occupying the
lands for more than several twelve years and they
are entitled to be Kaimi raiyats (settled raiyats)
which the Respondent No.3 is not disposing the
said petition till today.
II. For that although the Respondent No.
3 asked for report from Halka Karmchari to submit
before him and the Halka Karamchari reported
that the lands are still in cultivating possession and
father of petitioners had already been declared as
Bataidar U/S 48(E) of B.T. Act by D.C.L.R.,
Katihar vide Order dated 4.11.04 in Case
No.63/99-00/25/03-04, 48 (E) B.T. Act..
III. For that the original raiyat has got
no right to execute any sale deed to any person and
purchaser has also got no right to evict the
petitioners under the provisions of B.T. Act and the
petition for mutation being Case No.-1380 of 2021-
22 can not be entertained by the Respondent No. 3.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13483 of 2023(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/4
IV. For that the Respondent No. 3 is duty
bound to pass Order on petition of petitioners
Under Section 48 D of B.T. Act and Mutation Case
No. 1380 of 2021-22 filed by purchaser is liable to
be dismissed in law.
V. For that the petitioners' right to be
declared as Kaimi raiyat (settled raiyat) Under
Section 48 D of B.T. Act, has been perfected as
required Under Section 48 D, who are still in
cultivating possession continuously for more than
several twelve years.
VI. For that the petitioners' right as
Kaimi raiyat will be infringed due to non-passing
of Order and fundamental right Under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India will also be violated.”
3. A petition has been preferred before the Circle
Officer, Korha, Katihar in the year 2019 and if the contention of
the petitioner is correct, it has still not been taken to its logical
conclusion after lapse of seven years.
4. Though the memo no. 2697 dated 24.11.2019
shows that Revenue Authorities were asked to submit an
enquiry report but the stand of the petitioner is that no further
Patna High Court CWJC No.13483 of 2023(2) dt.15-04-2026
4/4
step has been taken.
5. In that background, instead of keeping the case
pending and imposing cost upon the State-respondents, who
have failed to file any affidavit, it would be proper that the writ
petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to approach the
Circle Officer, Korha, Katihar in next four weeks with the order
who shall be duty bound to take the petition filed in the year
2019 to its logical conclusion, if still has not been concluded.
The entire exercise is to be completed in next six months.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…