Patna High Court
Bharat YadavversusThe State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The petition is not maintainable as it is anticipatory and therefore the writ application is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Bharat Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State officials not to interfere with his possession of Raiyati land, alleging that the Circle Officer had threatened demolition on the basis that the land was public. He submitted a sale deed, revenue receipts, and a Land Possession Certificate to prove his title and claimed no notice had been served. The respondents argued that the petition was premature, as no demolition or other action had yet been taken, and that a mandamus cannot be issued for a future act. The Court held that the petition was filed in anticipation of a possible future action and, in the absence of any actual infringement or notice, could not be entertained. Consequently, the writ application was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Court again if an actual action is taken without notice under the Public Land Encroachment Act.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued in anticipation of a future administrative action.
- Whether the petitioner’s writ petition is maintainable in the absence of any actual interference or notice.
Subjects
- mandamus
- anticipatory litigation
- public land
- possession
- land reforms
- Bihar
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14225 of 2021
======================================================
Bharat Yadav, Son of Rajdeo Yadav, Resident of Charpulwa, Babu Bazar, P.O.
Ara, P.S. Ara Town, District- Bhojpur (Ara).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Ara.
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ara Sadar, Ara.
5. The Circle Officer, Anchal Sadar, Ara.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurav Govind, Adv.
For the State : Mr. AC to SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-03-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ
application seeking following relief(s) :
(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with
the peaceful possession of the Raiyati land belonging to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14225 of 2021 dt.13-03-2026
2/4
petitioner by laying false claim on it in the name of public
land; and
(ii) For issuance of any other writ(s)/order(s) or
direction to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action being taken by the
Circle Officer, Sadar, Ara, who had approached the land of the
petitioner and had orally informed him that the land is a public
land and the construction made on it would be demolished. It
has been submitted that the petitioner, on such oral
submission/statement made by the Circle Officer, has made a
detailed representation to the Collector, Ara on 04.02.2021,
bringing to his notice the fact that the land is not a public land
rather the petitioner has a sale-deed in his favour along with
revenue rent receipts and a Land Possession Certificate (LPC)
has also been issued to him by the concerned authorities. It
has further been submitted that the petitioner fears that he shall
be dispossessed from his own land and the construction made
on it would be demolished. It has also been submitted that till
date, no notice has been issued to the petitioner.
4. The learned AC to SC-25 submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14225 of 2021 dt.13-03-2026
3/4
present application seems to be misconceived as the petitioner
has approached this Court in anticipation of an action going to
take place. It has been submitted that a writ of mandamus
cannot be issued for an action which is yet to be taken and
from the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it
would be evident that no action has yet been taken against the
petitioner, let alone any action of demolition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and taking into account the averments made in the writ
petition, this Court feels that the present application has been
filed in anticipation of an action which is going to take place in
future and, therefore, the present application, as of now, cannot
be maintained, especially for the fact that there is no document
on record to show that any action has been initiated against the
petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the present application is being disposed of
with a liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again, as
and when advised, especially when an action is initiated
against him without any notice being served upon him under
the Public Land Encroachment Act.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14225 of 2021 dt.13-03-2026
4/4
writ application stands disposed off.
8. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed off accordingly.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 14/03/2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…