Patna High Court
Sanjit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish that the land is outside any notified forest area and therefore dismissed the petition, directing him to seek clarification from the forest department.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjit Kumar, claimed that his ancestors had a perpetual lease over 556.96 acres of land in Basarhi, Rohtas, acquired by registered deeds in 1949, and that the forest department had illegally fenced and declared the land as a protected forest without notice, acquisition proceedings, or compensation. He sought a writ of mandamus for restoration of possession and compensation. The court examined whether the land fell within any Central Government notification as a reserved forest and noted that the petitioner had not produced evidence to that effect. It observed that the petitioner could still approach the Additional Chief Secretary of the Department of Environment, Forest & Climate Change to verify the status of the land. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation if the land is not part of a notified forest area.
Issues considered
- Whether the forest department's encroachment and declaration of the land as protected forest without notice or acquisition proceedings violates the petitioner's rights.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of possession or compensation through a writ of mandamus.
- Whether the land in question falls within a notified reserved forest area under Central Government notification.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- forest department
- protected forest
- perpetual lease
- writ of mandamus
- restoration of possession
- compensation
- reserved forest notification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13916 of 2021
======================================================
Sanjit Kumar Son of Sri Kaushlapati Ojha Raghopur, Bihta, P.S.-bihta,
District-Patna. (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary Govt. of BIhar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate. Sasaram Rohtas.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Sasaram, Rohtas.
4. The District Forest Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas.
5. The Circle Officer, Hauhatta Block, Sasaram, Rohtas.
6. The Station House Officer, Chutia Police Station, Nauhatta.
7. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, ( SC19 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 05-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ojha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha,
learned SC19 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:-
“1. That the instant writ
application is being preferred on behalf
of the petitioner above named invoking
thewrit Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court for seeking the following
relief/relies:-
(i) For issuance of writ in
the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction to
respondents to restore and release the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13916 of 2021(4) dt.05-02-2026
2/6
physical possession of the land to the
petitioner and to make payment of
compensation of the some part of the
land to the petitioner which has been
acquired and fenced by the forest
department illegally and forcefully.
(ii) For issuance of any
other appropriate writ, order or
direction for which the petitioner is
entitled to.”
3.The brief facts of the case are that the ancestors of
the petitioner had taken a perpetual lease of the Gairmazarua
Malik and Sairat lands in village Basarhi, Pergana and Thana
Rohtas, T. No. 11769 (original T. No. 4767), from Sri Ramasray
Dubey and Sri Rameshwar Dubey, sons of Sri Giriz Prasad
Dubey, by four registered pattas dated 16.05.1949, pursuant to
which they came in possession of the entire leased lands and,
after reclaiming substantial portions at their own cost, made the
same cultivable and raised crops such as paddy, til, rahar, gram
and wheat. The lands in question, is situated in Village Basarhi,
Pergana and Thana Rohtas, Thana No. 622, comprising Khata
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 with a total area of about 556.96 acres, claimed
to be in peaceful possession of the petitioner’s family through
their predecessors, including Bishwanath Ojha and Banwari
Ojha, who were signatories to the lease deeds. Petitioner is
aggrieved by the action of officers the Forest Department, who
without issuing any notice or notification and without initiating
acquisition proceedings or paying any compensation, illegally
Patna High Court CWJC No.13916 of 2021(4) dt.05-02-2026
3/6
encroached upon the said lands, fenced them by fixing boundary
stones, declared them as protected forest and restrained the
petitioner from entering upon, reclaiming or cultivating the land,
thereby causing heavy loss to the petitioner’s family. Repeated
representations and legal notices, including a legal notice dated
21.01.2007 has been addressed to the Collector, Rohtas and the
Forest Officer, Sasaram, and subsequent representations dated
11.12.2012 and 18.08.2016 to various district and revenue
authorities, yielded no relief. The petitioner claims valid right,
title and interest over the land in question and contends that the
respondents have acted in gross violation of law by
dispossessing him without following due process under the land
acquisition laws, leaving him with no efficacious alternative
remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court seeking restoration of possession and consequential
reliefs.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner
submitted that the petitioner's ancestors acquired a perpetual
lease for Village Bashari (Pargana and Thana Rohtas, T. No.
11769 and original T. No. 4767). This lease was granted by one
Ramasray Dubey and one Rameshwar Dubey, sons of Shri Giriz
Prasad Dubey, through four registered deeds (pattas) dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.13916 of 2021(4) dt.05-02-2026
4/6
16.05.1949. Consequently, the petitioner took possession of all
Gairmazarua Malik lands and Sairet interests within the said
village appertaining to Village- Basarhi, Pergana and Thana
Rohtas T. No.-11760, (1+1) and original T. No.- 4767 Thana
No.-622. The details of lands are follows;
Khata No Plot No. Area
A. Dec
1 5 1.78
2 5 2.79
3 1 255.48
3 295.48
-----------
Total 556.96
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the
petitioner’s ancestors namely Shri Bishwanath Ojha (son of Sri
Chandradip Ojha) and Shri Banwari Ojha (son of Madheshwar
Ojha), executed the lease and commenced land reclamation and
agricultural activities. It is alleged that the Forest Department
subsequently encroached upon the land without providing
notice, issuing a formal notification, or paying compensation.
The Forest Department has since fenced the area with stone
markers, unilaterally treating it as Private Protected Forest.
Consequently, the petitioner’s father submitted a representation
to the District Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas on 11.12.2012
Patna High Court CWJC No.13916 of 2021(4) dt.05-02-2026
5/6
(Annexure-2), seeking protection against the illegal claim of the
forest department over the land in question.
6. Considering the relief(s) as sought for in the present
writ petition, as well as, the fact that the petitioner’s father has
already filed a representation before the District Magistrate,
Sasaram, Rohtas on 11.12.2012 to provide protection to him in
respect of illegal claim of the forest department over the land in
question, in which the petitioner has claimed for restoration of
physical possession over some part of the land or in alternative
to make payment of compensation in respect of the land which
has been allegedly occupied by the Department of Environment,
Forest & Climate Change (DoEFCC), Government of Bihar, I
find that the petitioner has not been able to bring on record in
support of his grievance in respect of notification brought by the
Central Government regarding the forest area within which
vicinity the petitioner's land is situated and whether it comes
under the notified and protected forest area.
7. The petitioner, if so advised, may file a fresh
representation before the Additional Chief Secretary, the
Department of Environment, Forest & Climate Change
(DoEFCC), Government of Bihar and if such application is filed
before the Additional Chief Secretary, he is directed to verify
Patna High Court CWJC No.13916 of 2021(4) dt.05-02-2026
6/6
from the records relating to the notified reserved area as forest
area and, verify whether, the land of the petitioner has been
notified as reserved forest area. If the petitioner’s land does not
comes under the notified Forest Area then in that case the land is
required to be returned back to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.