Patna High Court
Ramesh SinghversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- CONSIGNED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition is dismissed for non‑compliance with the peremptory order to file a substitution petition.
Summary
Petitioner Ramesh Singh filed a writ petition seeking that the State authorities measure and demarcate land covered by khata no. 78, specifically plots 1225 and 1235 (old plot 411), and carve out his share of 3.06 acres which he claims to hold an undisputed title over. He also asked that he be allowed to continue possession and be protected from disturbance by private respondents claiming purchase orders. The court gave a four‑week period to file a substitution petition, which the petitioner failed to do. As the order was peremptory and remained uncomplied, the court dismissed the petition on 5 January 2026. Consequently, no relief was granted and the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents are required to measure and demarcate the land claimed by the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a carved‑out share of 3.06 acres and protection of possession.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with the peremptory order to file a substitution petition.
Subjects
- land demarcation
- khata
- measurement of land
- possession
- civil writ jurisdiction
- land reforms
- peremptory order
- petition dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14880 of 2016
======================================================
Ramesh Singh son of Late Mahesh Singh, resident of village-Raipur
Bandhwa, Police Station-Haspura, District-Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and
Land Reforms, Patna
2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
3. The Additional District Magistrate, Revenue, Aurangabad.
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad.
5 The Circle Officer, Haspura, Aurangabad.
6. Bujhawan Dusadh son of Late Laxman Dusadh, resident of village-Raipur
Bandhwa, P.O.-Rampur Chai, Police Station-Deokund (Goh), District-
Aurangabad.
7. Ramdeo Dusadh son of Late Bhadai Dusadh, resident of village-Raipur
Bandhwa, P.O.-Rampur Chai, Police Station-Deokund (Goh), District-
Aurangabad.
8. Bhaju Dusadh son of Late Bhadai Dusadh, resident of village-Raipur
Bandhwa, P.O.-Rampur Chai, Police Station-Deokund (Goh), District-
Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Priyadarshi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md.Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 31-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) to command the respondents and
direct them to take measurement of the lands
Patna High Court CWJC No.14880 of 2016(5) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
appertaining to khata no. 78 particularly in
respect of plots no. 1225 and 1235 (old plot no.
411) having area of 38.86 acres, falling under
Mauza Raipur Bandhwa, Thana no. 226, police
station- Haspura, district-Aurangabad, and
further direct them to demarcate the lands
according to respective shares being held by the
title holders.
(ii) to order the respondents to
demarcate the lands of the petitioner from
kahata no. 78 and plot nos. 1225 and 1235 (old
plot no. 411) abovementioned and carve out his
share of 3.06 acres of which petitioner has been
enjoying undisputed title.
(iii) to command the respondents and
order them to ensure that petitioner is allowed to
enjoy his title over land in question and continue
with his possession and further prevent private
respondents from disturbing with his possession
over the lands in question those in garb of
purchas for settlement being issued in theirs'
favor in plot no. 411 of khata no. 78 have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.14880 of 2016(5) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
from time to time disturbing and threatening to
dispossess him.
(iv) for issuance of any other
writ/order/direction to which the Petitioner is
found entitled to in the eye of law.”
3. In this case on 02.12.2025, four weeks’ time was
granted to file substitution petition.
4. As it was a peremptory order and not complied, it
stood dismissed on 05.01.2026.
5. Perused the file, consigned.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…