Patna High Court
Malti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that, in view of the unimplemented order and absence of any challenge, the petitioner must approach the Collector of East Champaran to seek enforcement of the Deputy Collector’s directive.
Summary
Petitioner Malti Devi filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State authorities to restore her possession of a 0.08 decimal land parcel (Khata No. 43, Plot No. 2088) from which she alleges she was illegally dispossessed by respondent No.7. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform, had issued an order in 2019 directing the Circle Officer to act on the matter, but no action was taken and the order was neither challenged nor annulled. The State counsel indicated that a response from the Circle Officer was being sought. The Court observed that the non‑compliance of the Deputy Collector’s order warrants the petitioner to approach the Collector of East Champaran, presenting all representations made earlier. The Court directed that the petition be re‑filed before the Collector within four weeks, who should hear the parties and pass a reasoned order within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the Deputy Collector’s order directing the Circle Officer to restore possession can be enforced by a writ of mandamus.
- Whether the failure to comply with the order constitutes illegal dispossession warranting judicial intervention.
- Whether the petitioner should approach the Collector for enforcement of the order.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- restoration of possession
- land reform
- illegal dispossession
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1525 of 2026
======================================================
Malti Devi Wife of Raghav Ray, Resident of Gandhi Nagar, Ghorasahan, P.S.-
Ghorasahan, District East Champaran, and at presently residing at ward no.-1,
Basawariya, P.S.- Gadasahan, East Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land and
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari.
3. The Additional Collector, Headquarter, East Champaran at Motihari.
4. The Subdivisional Magistrate, Ghorasahan, Dhaka, District- East
Champaran at Motihari.
5. The Deputy Collector of Land Reform, Ghorasahan, Dhaka, District- East
Champaran at Motihari.
6. The Circle Officer, Ghorasahan, Anchal, Ghorasahan, Dhaka, District- East
Champaran at Motihari.
7. Satish Prasad Kushwaha, Son Jagat Narayan Kushwaha, Resident of village-
Koraiya, P.S.- Jharaukhar, District- East Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Government Pleader (27)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 31-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“for issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction, particularly in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondent authorities
to restore possession of the petitioner over her
Basgit Parcha land, bearing Khata No. 43, Plot
Patna High Court CWJC No.1525 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
No. 2088, area 0.08 Decimal, situated at Mauza-
Ghorasahan, P.S. Ghorasahan, Block
Ghorasahan, District-East Champaran, from
which she has been illegally and forcibly
dispossessed by respondent no. 7.”
3. The respondent no.5, the Deputy Collector, Land
Reform, Ghorasahan, Dhaka, East Champaran, passed an order
way back in the year 2019 in Case No. 02/2017-18 (Malti Devi
vs. Satish Prasad Kushwaha) directing the Circle Officer,
Ghorasahan, Dhaka, East Champaran, to act in the matter
(annexure P/8 to the petition).
4. The contention in the writ petition is that even after
passage of so many years and representation before different
authorities, the said order has not been complied.
5. Learned State counsel submits that response has
been sought for from the concerned Circle Officer. This Court is
of the view that an order was passed by the Deputy Collector,
Land Reform, Ghorasahan, Dhaka, East Champaran, if the
contention of the petitioner is accepted, the same was neither
challenged nor annulled but the Circle Officer, Ghorasahan has
not acted in the matter, it would be appropriate that the
petitioner approaches the respondent no.2, the Collector, East
Patna High Court CWJC No.1525 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
Champaran at Motihari, bringing to his notice all the
facts/representation that has been repeatedly preferred by her
without any response.
6. If the said petition is preferred in next four weeks,
the Collector, East Champaran at Motihari shall hear all the
parties after noticing them and further shall passing a reasoned
order at an earliest, preferably within a period of six months.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…