Patna High Court
Md. AlamgirversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The 2011 Bihar Khas Mahal Policy cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat the petitioner's pre‑existing joint lease rights, and the petitioner may seek relief by filing a detailed representation before the District Magistrate‑Collector, with the writ petition disposed.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Alamgir, claimed that his name, originally entered as a joint lessee on a 1993 lease deed for Shop No. 19 Khas Mahal, was illegally removed from revenue records in 2011 without notice, violating natural justice. After his brother’s death, respondents 6‑9 allegedly encroached on the shop, demolished walls and amalgamated adjacent government land, prompting the petitioner to seek renewal of the lease and restoration of his name. The Additional District Magistrate and later the District Magistrate affirmed the respondents’ claim despite inquiry reports confirming the petitioner’s joint lease rights, leading the petitioner to challenge those orders by writ of certiorari and mandamus. The State argued that the 2017 Supreme Court decision in State of Bihar v. Khas Mahal Citizen Welfare Society settled the issue, rendering the petition’s reliefs unavailable. The Court held that the 2011 Bihar Khas Mahal Policy cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat pre‑existing lease rights and directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the District Magistrate‑Collector, disposing of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the deletion of the petitioner's name from Khas Mahal records without notice violates Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution.
- Whether the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and District Magistrate recognizing respondents as successors are ultra vires and liable to be quashed.
- Whether the 2011 Bihar Khas Mahal Policy can be applied retrospectively to affect lease rights granted before its commencement.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of his name and other reliefs under the 1993 joint lease deed.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 300A
Subjects
- lease deed
- Khas Mahal
- joint lessee
- deletion of name
- natural justice
- encroachment
- land revenue records
- certiorari
- mandamus
- prohibition
- Constitutional law
- Bihar Khas Mahal Policy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1410 of 2026
======================================================
Md. Alamgir S/o Late Md. Nezamuddin, R/o Miscot Ramna, Motihari, Post
Office- Motihari 845401.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 800015.
2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari- 845401.
3. The Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), East Champaran, Motihari
845401.
4. The Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) (DCLR), Sadar, East Champaran,
Motihari 845401.
5. The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Public Works Department,
Motihari, District East Champaran 845401.
6. Smt. Nasreen Bano, D/o Late Md. Jahangir, W/o Md. Haseeb, R/o Mohalla
Paithanpatti, Near Panch Madir Chowk, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar
845401.
7. Md. Haseeb @ Haseeb Raza S/o Late Md. Hazik Siddiki, Aged about 52
years, R/o Mohalla Paithanpatti, Near Panch Madir Chowk, Motihari, East
Champaran, Bihar - 845401.
8. Smt. Yashmin Bano, D/o Late Md. Jahangir, W/o Saud Khan, R/o Urdu
Bazar, Turkmanpur, Opposite J.J. Hospital, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh -
273005.
9. Smt. Nazneen Bano, D/o Late Md. Jahangir, W/o S.M. Moquimuddin @
Saif, R/o Nice Place, New Jail Road, Baduei Road near Turba College,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 462036.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Noushad Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Alok Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 31-01-2026 Heard Mr. Noudhad Khan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Alok Ranjan,
learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.1410 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
2/7
petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“(I) For issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari for quashing the impugned order
dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate, Motihari in Memo No.319/2022 .
(b) For issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari for quashing the appellate order dated
09.06.2025 passed by the District Magistrate,
Motihari in Appeal Case No.18/203.
(c) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to restore
the petitioner’s name in all Khas Mahal lease
registers, revenue records and municipal records as
co-leasee under Registered Lease Deed No.17109
dated 06.09.1993 in respect of Shop No.19 Khas
Mahal, Motihari.
(d) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus/prohibition restraining the respondent
authorities from entertaining processing or
granting any renewal, mutation, lease extension or
correction of records in favour of respondent nos.
6-9 or any other person claiming through them in
respect of Shop No.19 or the illegally amalgamated
portion of shop no.18 during the pendency of the
present writ petition.
(e) For any other relief or reliefs as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interests of justice.”
3. The Brief Facts of the Case are that a Shop No. 19,
Khas Mahal, Motihari was jointly allotted to the petitioner and
his elder brother, Late Md. Jahangir, under a registered Lease
Deed No. 17109 dated 06.09.1993 for a period of 30 years
commencing from 01.04.1993. The lease deed clearly records
Patna High Court CWJC No.1410 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
3/7
both as joint lessees with equal rights. From 1993 to 2011, all
Khas Mahal and municipal records consistently reflected their
joint names. Around 2011, during the petitioner’s temporary
absence from Motihari, his name was illegally deleted from the
Khas Mahal Register without notice, inquiry, or any lawful
order, in violation of principles of natural justice. Upon
representation, the Additional District Magistrate, Motihari, by
Letter No. 507 dated 11.03.2013, confirmed that the lease had
been jointly allotted and directed that both names be reflected in
official records. After the death of Late Md. Jahangir on
13.07.2020, Respondent Nos. 6–9 allegedly took advantage of
the illegal deletion of the petitioner’s name and forcibly
dispossessed him from Shop No. 19. They demolished the side
boundary wall, encroached upon adjoining Government land
(Shop No. 18), amalgamated it with Shop No. 19, and
commenced commercial use. The petitioner filed a renewal
application on 06.07.2022 seeking renewal of lease and
restoration of his name. A physical inspection report dated
23.07.2022 and multiple subsequent revenue inquiry reports
(2022–2023) consistently confirmed that the petitioner was the
original joint lessee and deletion of his name was illegal and the
Respondent Nos. 6–9 had encroached upon Government land.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1410 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
4/7
Despite these findings, the Additional District Magistrate, by
order dated 23.01.2023 (Case No. 319/2022), recognized
Respondent Nos. 6–9 as successors of Shop No. 19, ignoring the
petitioner’s registered lease and inquiry reports. The
Commissioner, Tirhut Division, in Appeal No. 104/2023 dated
02.05.2023, directed reconsideration in accordance with the
Khas Mahal Manual. A subsequent DCLR inquiry report dated
07.11.2023 again confirmed the petitioner’s joint leasehold
rights and the illegality of encroachment. However, the District
Magistrate, by order dated 09.06.2025 in Appeal Case No.
18/2023, mechanically affirmed the ADM’s order without
considering the lease deed or inquiry findings. The petitioner
filed a statutory appeal before the Bihar Land Tribunal on
02.09.2025 (Token No. TMP/2025/1246), but due to vacancy in
the office of the Chairman, the Tribunal remains non-functional,
leaving the petitioner without an efficacious alternative remedy.
The impugned actions of the respondent authorities in deleting
the petitioner’s name without notice, disregarding binding
inquiry reports, and recognizing alleged encroachers as
successors are arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and
300A of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1410 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
5/7
petitioner submitted that the petitioner seeks to file a detailed
application/representation before the District Magistrate-cum-
Collector, East Champaran at Motihari in respect of his claim
made in the present writ petition. Learned counsel further
submits that the issues involved in the present case have already
been settled by the Apex Court, however, he does not remember
the said judgment of the Apex Court.
5. At this stage, Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State submits that the issues as has
been raised in the present writ petition by the petitioner has been
settled in 2017(3) PLJR 662 (State of Bihar vs. Khas Mahal
Citizen Welfare Society)
6. Heard the parties.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, I find that the petitioner, if so advised, may
file a detail representation/application before the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran at Motihari, who
will call for the records relating to the land, in question, which is
admittedly a Khas Mahal land and will see that the reliefs as
prayed for in the present writ petition can be allowed in favour
of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in 2017(3)
PLJR 662 (State of Bihar vs. Khas Mahal Citizen Welfare
Patna High Court CWJC No.1410 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
6/7
Society). Learned Division Bench of this court in paragraph 2 of
the said judgment has already held and observed as follows:-
“2. Taking shelter of a policy which came into force
in the year 2011, namely, the Bihar Khas Mahal
Policy, 2011, action was proposed to be taken
against the Society and the Society and its members
(lessee) approached this Court in the writ petition
and in the writ petition it was found that the policy
of 2011 will have prospective effect, will not apply
and cannot be made applicable to any act of the
Society and its members prior to coming into force
of the policy and further holding that if any act has
been undertaken contrary to the lease deed prior to
forming of the policy, the State had
right to proceed in the matter of cancellation of the
lease deed in terms of the lease deed and to get the
lease deed cancelled in accordance with law or to
take recourse to the remedy of filing a suit for
getting the transaction declared as null and void i.e.
which took place prior to coming into force of the
policy in question. Prima facie holding that the
policy in question which came in the year 2011
cannot be used against the acts of the Society and its
members which took place prior to coming into
force of the policy, the writ petition has been
allowed and liberty has been granted to the State
Government to proceed in accordance with law for
violation of the lease deed granted. In fact by the
policy in question the State Government is trying to
change the conditions of the lease, which according
to learned Writ Court was not permissible”
8. The aforesaid judgment rendered by the learned
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khas Mahal Citizen
Welfare Society (supra) has also been upheld by a judgment
rendered by the Apex Court, reported in 2019(1) PLJR 628
(SC).
9. In case, the dispute is between the petitioner and
the respondents No.6 to 9, he may first issue notice to them and
then proceed to decide the issue in accordance with law well
Patna High Court CWJC No.1410 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
7/7
within a period of three months.
10. With the above observation/direction, the present
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U
Checking your session…