Patna High Court
Dukhai Lal @ Dukhwa YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Circle Officer, and declined to issue a writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Dukhai Lal, claimed ownership of a plot of land and obtained an order dated 10 June 2022 from the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records (DCLR), Barsoi, directing the Circle Officer of Balrampur to measure the land as per the petitioner's sale deed and to determine and remove any illegal possession by private respondents Mangla Singh, Budh Karan Singh and Heera Roy. The Circle Officer failed to act on the DCLR's directions, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the officer to comply with the measurement order and to evict the private respondents. The State counsel argued that the Circle Officer would, if required, take up the matter and hear all parties before reaching a conclusion. The High Court observed that the petitioner should file a fresh representation before the Circle Officer in line with the DCLR's order, after which the officer would be duty‑bound to act according to law. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition without granting the writ of mandamus.
Issues considered
- What legal duty, if any, does the Circle Officer have to implement the DCLR's order dated 10 June 2022?
- Whether a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel the Circle Officer to measure the land and evict the private respondents.
- Whether the petitioner must approach the concerned authority afresh before the court can entertain a mandamus application.
Subjects
- land dispute
- mandamus
- illegal possession
- measurement of land
- circle officer
- revenue law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1553 of 2026
======================================================
Dukhai Lal @ Dukhwa Yadav Son of Late Uchit Lal Yadav @ Uchit Lal,
Resident of Village- Shahpur, P.O.- Dangol, P.S.- Balrampur, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary of Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Katihar.
3. The D.C.L.R., Barsoi, Katihar.
4. The Circle Officer, Balrampur, Katihar.
5. Mangla Singh, Son of Darak Mohan Singh, Resident of Village- Sahpur,
P.O.- Dangol, P.S.- Balrampur, District- Katihar.
6. Budh Karan Singh, Son of Darak Mohan Singh, Resident of Village- Sahpur,
P.O.- Dangol, P.S.- Balrampur, District- Katihar.
7. Heera Roy, Son of Moti Roy, Resident of Village- Sahpur, P.O.- Dangol,
P.S.- Balrampur, District- Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivnandan Bharti, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahamad, AAG-5
Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 15-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature
of Mandamus for directing the concerned authority
specially the respondent no.04 to comply the order
dated 10.06.2022 contained in Annexure-P/5
passed by the learned D.C.L.R., Barsoi, Katihar in
connection with B.L.D.R. Case No.30/2021-22 by
Patna High Court CWJC No.1553 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
2/4
which and whereunder the learned D.C.L.R, i.e. the
respondent no.03 Barsoi, Katihar held that
admitting the claim of the petitioner. The
possession of the plot of land in question was
declared in his favour, (petitioner's favour) and
further directed the respondent no.4 to ascertain to
be measured the disputed plots of land as per the
petitioner's registered sale deed by taking
measurement cost to be deposited. It was further
also directed to the said Authority i.e. the
respondent no.4 to determine the illegal possession
made by private respondent no.5 to 7 over the
petitioner's purchased plots of the land to be
removed if it was found, after the measurement that
the private respondent nos.5 to 7 had illegally
possessed over his (petitioner's) plots of land.
(ii) For further issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus in order to direct specially the
respondent no.04 to remove/eject the illegal
possession of the private respondent nos. 5 to 7
from the purchased plots of land of the petitioner
as per the outcome of the measurement to be made
Patna High Court CWJC No.1553 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
3/4
by the concerned authority.
(iii) For further issuance of an
appropriate writ /writs, direction/directions to the
concerned respondent authority to reinstate the
petitioner over his purchased plots of land by
removing the private respondents i.e. the
respondent nos.5 to 7 who have illegally been
possessing over the disputed plots of land.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the DCLR, Barsoi passed an order in BLDR Case No.
30/2021-22 (Dukhai Lal vs. Mangla Singh & Ors.) on
10.06.2022, the Circle Officer, Balrampur, Katihar is not acting
as per the direction.
4. Learned State counsel, on query, submits that if no
order has been passed, he/she (respondent no. 4, the Circle
Officer, Balrampur, Katihar) shall be taking up the matter and
after hearing the petitioner as also the respondent nos. 5 to
7/their heirs, shall be duty bound to take the matter to its logical
conclusion.
5. In that background, the writ petition stands
disposed of with the observation that if the petitioner files fresh
representation before the concerned authority in line with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1553 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
4/4
direction given by the DCLR, Barsoi, he/she (respondent no. 4,
the Circle Officer, Balrampur, Katihar) shall be duty bound to
act in accordance with law as undertaken by the learned State
counsel.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.