Patna High Court
Ambedkar Kumar Dayal @ Ambedkar PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that it was premature to adjudicate the petitioner's claim of crystallised possession and therefore dismissed the writ application.
Summary
The petitioner, Ambedkar Kumar Dayal, was allotted 0.25 decimal of land under a 1991 settlement patta and obtained a mutated Jamabandi in his favour. Private respondent No.8 subsequently disturbed his possession by constructing a hut, despite earlier BLDR orders (Case No. 05/2014 and Appeal No. 04/2015) confirming the petitioner's right to peaceful possession. The petitioner filed a writ seeking a mandamus directing the State authorities to act against the private respondent. The State argued that the earlier judgment in Ramowtar Lakhotia (C.W.J.C. No. 16494 of 2018) was inapplicable and that the petitioner should approach the Collector under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. The Court examined the relevance of Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, Section 27(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the concept of crystallisation of possessory rights, and concluded that it was premature to intervene. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has crystallised a possessory right over the allotted land sufficient to warrant a mandamus.
- Whether Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 is ultra vires and applicable in this context.
- Whether the remedy for the petitioner lies before the Collector under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
- Whether the provisions of Section 27(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 affect the petitioner's right to retain the land.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land mutation
- possession
- mandamus
- welfare land allocation
- crystallisation of right
- ultra vires
- land reform
- jamabandi
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1402 of 2026
======================================================
Ambedkar Kumar Dayal @ Ambedkar Paswan S/o Ram Prakash Paswan, R/o
Village-Dhabauli, Ward No. 09, P.S.-Lakho, District-Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Munger.
3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Begusarai.
4. Additional District Magistrate cum A.D.M., Begusarai.
5. Deputy Collector Land Reforms cum D.C.L.R., Begusarai.
6. The Circle Officer, Begusarai.
7. The S.H.O. Lakho, Begusarai.
8. Deena Mahto, S/o Late Sri Mahto, R/o Village-Sirniya Sub Division and
District-Begusarai at present R/o Village-Mauza Dhabauli, P.S.-Lakho
Anchal cum Sub Division cum District-Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raghwendra Kumar, Standing Counsel (22)
Mr.Rajesh Roy, AC to SC 22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 31-01-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh along with Mr. Sunil
Kumar Yadav, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, learned SC 22 along
with Mr. Rajesh Roy, learned AC to SC 22 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:-
“That by way of writ petition the petitoner
craves of indulgene of this Hon’ble Court for the issuane of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1402 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
2/5
writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ
order or orders direction & directions commanding the
respondents authorities to take appropriate action against
private respondent no.8, who is disturbing the petitioner in
his peaceful physical possession over the land situated the
Mauza Dhabauli Thana No.336 Khata No.376, Kheshra
No.299/41 having an area of 0.25 dismil which was
obtained through Patta No.35 dated 10.01.1991 issued by
the Collectorate and the petitioner further prays for other
consequencial relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is
entitled under the law.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was allotted 0.25 decimal of land by
virtue of Settlement Patta No. 35 dated 10.01.1991, bearing Khata
No. 376, Kheshra No. 299/41, situated at Mauza Dhabauli, Thana
No. 336. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner came into physical
possession of the said land and started cultivating the same and he
has got the land mutated in his favour and Jamabandi No.334
has also been created.
4. It is further submitted that subsequently, Respondent
No. 8, in connivance with his uncle, started disturbing the peaceful
possession of the petitioner and forcibly constructed a hut over the
said land. Accordingly, the petitioner filed BLDR Case No. 05/2014,
which was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide order dated
06.12.2014 . The said order was challenged by Respondent No. 8 by
filing BLDR Appeal No. 04/2015, which was disposed of vide order
dated 10.01.2015, whereby the petitioner was held entitled to
peaceful possession over the disputed land. Despite the aforesaid
orders, Respondent No. 8 continues to disturb the petitioner’s
Patna High Court CWJC No.1402 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
3/5
possession. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that in due
course of time, the petitioner’s right has crystallized. The
learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16494 of 2018 (Ramowtar Lakhotia Vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors.).
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submitted that the judgment dated 10.04.2024 passed
in C.W.J.C. No. 16494 of 2018 is not of any benefit to the
petitioner as the said case is related to Jamabandi over which
the petitioner / appellant of the said case had claimed their right
and title on the basis of the Khatiyani Raiyat. The Division
Bench had striked down the impugned Section 9(1) of the Bihar
Land Mutation Act, 2011 to the extent it confers power upon the
Additional Collector “to dispossess the person whose
Jamabandi has been cancelled and to put in possession the
legitimate owner/custodian of such land on such terms as may
appear to be fair and equitable”. Learned counsel further
submitted that corresponding Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of the
Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012 has also been held ultra vires
Article 300A of the Constitution of India, apart from that being
beyond the scope & ambit of Entry 45 of List II of Schedule
VII. Learned counsel having distinguished the case of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1402 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
4/5
petitioner in light of the judgment dated 10.04.2024 submitted
that the petitioner has remedy before the Collector for claiming
his right and relief as sought for.
7. Heard the parties.
8. Having heard the rival submissions, the petitioner
has based his argument on the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Ramowtar Lakhotia (supra). The provision
of Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 has been
held to be ultra vires. Section 26 of the Act defines Jamabandi.
This clarified that the procedure for cancellation of jamabandi
can only be adopted in such cases where a person is aggrieved
in respect of any land over which he has a title. In the present
case, the petitioner has got mutated the land in his favour and
Jamabandi No.334 has been created.
9. The petitioner has claimed and admitted that the
said land was allotted to the petitioner under a welfare scheme
providing land to the landless person and at the time of
allotment, the petitioner was a landless person.
10. Section 27(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act,
1961 provides that “the land settled by the Collector under
sub-section (1) shall be heritable but shall not be
Patna High Court CWJC No.1402 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
5/5
transferable”.
11. I find that it is pre-mature for this Court to enter
into the question, as to whether, the petitioner has crystallized
their possessory right in view of the admitted position that the
the petitioner was landless and under the welfare scheme, he
was allotted a piece of land over which he was cultivating. The
District Magistrate cum Collector is required to verify, as to
whether, the petitioner has no land.
12. The writ application, accordingly, stands disposed
of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U .
Checking your session…