Patna High Court
Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector must be directed to ensure the Circle Officer creates the jamabandi within three weeks or, if the claim is not legally tenable, to pass a reasoned order after hearing.
Summary
Manish Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the District Magistrate and Circle Officer to process the mutation of land purchased by him and three co‑purchasers, alleging that the Circle Officer had arbitrarily delayed creation of the jamabandi despite valid sale deeds and continuous payment of land revenue. The State argued that the petitioner should first approach the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector and that the relief claimed was not maintainable. The Court observed that the petitioner is entitled to seek redress before the District Magistrate under Article 300A and that the District Magistrate must ensure the Circle Officer produces the jamabandi within three weeks or issue a reasoned order if the claim is untenable. Accordingly, the Court directed the District Magistrate to summon the Circle Officer with all revenue records and to compel the generation of an online jamabandi within the stipulated period. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition seeking direction for mutation and jamabandi is maintainable.
- Whether the petitioner must first approach the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector for relief under Article 300A.
- Whether the alleged inaction of the Circle Officer constitutes illegal or arbitrary conduct warranting judicial intervention.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 300A
Subjects
- mutation
- jamabandi
- land revenue
- writ petition
- District Magistrate
- Circle Officer
- Article 300A
- property rights
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1404 of 2026
======================================================
Manish Kumar S/o Raj Kumar Gupta, Resident of Village- Nayapul Bikram,
P.S- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Additional District Magistrate, Patna.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bikram, Patna.
5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bikram, Danapur, Patna.
6. The Circle Officer, Dulhin Bazar, Patna.
7. The Officer-in-Charge (SHO), Dulhin Bazar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate
Ms.Reema Sahay, Advocate
Ms.Pallavi Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP 23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 31-01-2026 Heard Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh along with
Ms.Reema Sahay and Ms. Pallavi Kumari, learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar,
learned AC to GP 23 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 this is an appropriate writ for
direction/order to the District Magistrate, Patna as
well as the Circle Officer, Dulhin Bazar to consider
the case of mutation in the name of purchaser
Patna High Court CWJC No.1404 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
2/4
petitioner Manish Kumar relating to land bearing
Mauza-Bhadbhesar, Thana-Dulhin Bazar, Sub
Registry-Bikram, Sadar Registry and District-
Patna, Halka-Bharatpura, Anchal-Dulhin Bazar,
Thana 288, Tauzi No.Bihar Government, Khata
No.67, Plot No.247, Area 01 Acre 78 Decimal
purchased by four persons including petitioner
namely (i) Manish Kumar, S/O Raj Kumar Gupta,
(ii) Om Prakash Gupta, S/O Late Manikchandra
Saw, (iii) Ashok Kumar S/O Late Rajeshwar Prasad
(iv) Manoj Kumar, S/O Late Dadan Prasad, who
have purchased the land from (i) Chandeshwar
Prasad, (ii) Kameshwar Prasad, (iii) Baleshwar
Yadav, (iv) Umesh Prasad, all sons of Late
Dhanukdhari Yadav and also a direction to the
respondent concern to pass a reasonable order in
the matter for the delay in mutation proceeding and
quash the rejection order to mutation order if any
other relief/reliefs to the petitioner as your
lordships may be deem fit and proper.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to
harassment on account of the illegal and arbitrary actions of the
Circle Officer, for reasons best known to him, as well as, his
predecessors. Learned counsel contended that the jamabandi has
not been created despite the existence of Sale-deed No. 3143
dated 26.05.1947 and Sale-deed No. 6165 dated 18.05.2022,
pursuant to which the petitioner has been continuously paying
land revenue to the State Government. Learned counsel further
submitted that the conduct of the Circle Officer deserves to be
deprecated and in this regard, the action is required to be taken
Patna High Court CWJC No.1404 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
3/4
against him for delaying in not creating jamabandi so that the
same can be uploaded on the official website for facilitating
online payment of the revenue.
4. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any
action of the Circle Officer, he may put his grievance before the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector concerned to take notice of
the same or he has remedy against such illegal action before the
appropriate Forum. Learned counsel further submitted that the
relief as prayed for in the present writ petition is not
maintainable and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
5. Heard the parties.
6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the
Circle Officer, who has allegedly not created jamabandi on the
basis of sale-deeds, which he has referred in the present writ
petition. The petitioner has liberty to make a detail
application/representation before the District Magistrate-cum-
Collector concerned for redressal of his grievance and the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector must be cautious of right of a
citizen under Article 300A of the Constitution of India in respect
of his claim on the basis of two sale-deeds.
7. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector is directed
Patna High Court CWJC No.1404 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
4/4
to summon the Circle Officer to come along with all the revenue
records relating to the land, which the petitioner claims and see
that the Circle Office ensures to act in accordance with law by
generating online jamabandi in respect of the land in question
well within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of
this order. In case the claim of the petitioner is not in accordance
with law, a reasoned order after giving due opportunity of
hearing is required to be passed expeditiously considering the
matter is pending since Year, 2022.
8. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector must ensure
to take action by directing all the Circle Officers concerned
within his jurisdiction to act in accordance with law and in case,
he finds that inaction is deliberate on their part, they must be
held responsible, so that the poor citizens may not be denied
their right as granted under Article 300A of the Constitution of
India.
9. With the above observation/direction, the present
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U
Checking your session…