Patna High Court
Anuplal SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed and the Mukhiya is ordered to be removed from office.
Summary
Anuplal Sah petitioned the Patna High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to stop the construction of a public road over his private raiyati land (Plot No. 252/253) and to order fresh measurement in accordance with consolidation orders dated 1997. He alleged that the Block Development Officer and the Mukhiya, taking advantage of his absence, were illegally proceeding with the road construction without his consent or proper acquisition. The court noted that the Mukhiya had refused to appear despite valid service of notice under Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC and that the petitioner’s grievance was limited to the alleged encroachment. The court directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, to remove the Mukhiya from office and held that the writ petition could not be granted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the matter was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the authorities can lawfully construct a public road over the petitioner’s private raiyati land contrary to consolidation orders.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain the construction and direct fresh measurement.
- Whether the Mukhiya’s refusal to appear, despite valid service of notice, warrants removal from office under CPC Order 5 Rule 17.
- Whether an enquiry into the actions of the Block Development Officer and Mukhiya is appropriate.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 5 Rule 17
Subjects
- raiayati land
- public road construction
- mandamus
- consolidation orders
- encroachment
- Panchayati Raj
- removal of Mukhiya
- CPC Order 5 Rule 17
- land acquisition
- survey error
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1398 of 2021
======================================================
Anuplal Sah Son of Late Bhagwat Sah Resident of Village- Shivganj, P.S.-
Rajapakar, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur.
3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali at Hajipur.
5. The Block Development Officer, Hajipur, District- Vaishali.
6. The Circle Officer, Hajipur, District- Vaishali.
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Shivganj, P.S.- Rajapakar, District-
Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-15.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents
authority not to construct a public road upon the private
raiyati land of the petitioner upon the Plot No. 253 as per
order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner,
Vaishali at Hajipur passed in Consolidation Case No.
21/1997 and 41/1997 as by this order area of the Plot No.
251 has got corrected and accordingly a direction be given
to the Block Development Officer and Mukhiya to take
afresh measurement in the presence of the petitioner and
after subtracting the area of the Plot No. 253 road may be
constructed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1398 of 2021(6) dt.13-01-2026
2/4
ii) For further direction to the Respondents
Authority to hold an enquiry with regard to the action of the
Block Development Officer and Mukhiya of the concern
Gram Panchayat who taking advantage of the absence of the
petitioner is constructing a public road with the government
fund without consent and acquisition of the land in
question.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the land in question
appertains to C.S. Plot No. 252 corresponding to R.S. Plot No.
924, situated in village Ahmadpur Lakhni Chakauliya, P.S.
Rajapakar, District Vaishali. C.S. Plot Nos. 251, 252 and 253
were, on the spot, amalgamated into one compact block having
a residential house and were recorded in the name of the
ancestors of the petitioner, who remained in exclusive
possession thereof. At the time of Revisional Survey, the father
and uncle of the petitioner were in possession, and accordingly
R.S. Plot No. 924 was prepared out of the aforesaid C.S. plots,
showing the residential house recorded in their names. It is the
specific case of the petitioner that though no road existed in the
Cadastral Map, due to an error on the part of the survey
authorities, a public road was wrongly shown in the Revisional
Survey Map over a portion of C.S. Plot No. 252 and some part
thereof was erroneously amalgamated with Plot No. 698, which
was wrongly recorded in the name of the State of Bihar. For
correction of such errors, the father of the petitioner filed Misc.
Case No. 21/1997 and the petitioner filed Misc. Case No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1398 of 2021(6) dt.13-01-2026
3/4
41/1997 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, and vide
orders dated 06.06.1997 and 24.12.1997, the area of R.S. Plot
No. 924 was duly corrected to 0.22 decimal and 1¼ decimal of
land was ordered to be amalgamated from Plot No. 698 to Plot
No. 924. The said orders attained finality, remained
unchallenged, and the petitioner continued in peaceful
possession with a residential house. Subsequently, taking
advantage of the petitioner’s absence from the village, an
encroachment proceeding was initiated, culminating in adverse
orders, which led to filing of CWJC No. 1899 of 2004 that was
allowed by this Hon’ble Court with remand, and thereafter
CWJC No. 3815 of 2008 challenging the measurement report,
which came to be dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner,
however, is confined to the extent that the respondent
authorities, despite the subsisting and operative orders of the
Deputy Director, Consolidation, are proceeding to construct a
road over the raiyati land of the petitioner without carrying out
measurement in accordance with the said orders, and in
connivance with the Mukhiya and Block Development Officer,
ignoring the petitioner’s representations seeking protection of
his settled land.
4. From perusal of the office note dated 07.01.2026, it
Patna High Court CWJC No.1398 of 2021(6) dt.13-01-2026
4/4
appears that in spite of specific direction of this Court, the
Mukhiya has refused to accept the notice and appear before this
Court, though at the time of service of notice, husband of
Mukhiya was present. Taking note of Order 5 Rule 17 CPC, I
find it will be a valid service of notice, but deliberate inaction
on the part of the Mukhiya calls this Court to direct the
Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar
to proceed to remove the Mukhiya from the post as the
allegation against the Mukhiya is that she in connivance with
the Block Development Officer has started construction of a
road illegally without taking consent of the petitioner. It is also
informed that some suitable sites are available in the said village
where the Panchayati Raj Bhawan can be constructed. Such
arbitrary action should not be condoned in any manner.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U
Checking your session…