Patna High Court
Bharti Jha @ Bharti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition is dismissed for lack of joinder of necessary parties, with a direction that the petitioner approach the Collector to obtain a reasoned decision on the clerical error.
Summary
The petitioner, Bharti Jha, a widow, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a notification that erroneously listed certain lands of her late husband also under the name of her husband's uncle, Laxmeshwar Jha, in a land‑ceiling case. She alleged that the duplication was a clerical mistake and requested the respondents to refrain from acquiring or distributing the disputed lands. The State counsel argued that the petition should be dismissed for non‑joinder of the necessary parties, namely Laxmeshwar Jha and his heirs, and warned that entertaining the petition could reopen the land‑ceiling proceedings. The Court examined the land records, acknowledged the duplication, and held that correcting the clerical error does not amount to reopening the case but requires the participation of all interested parties. In the interest of justice, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Collector of West Champaran, who should issue notice to the stakeholders and issue a reasoned decision, rather than entertain the writ. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the land‑ceiling notification can be entertained despite the non‑joinder of necessary parties.
- Whether rectifying a clerical error in land‑ceiling records constitutes a re‑opening of the original land‑ceiling proceeding.
- Whether the Court can direct the Collector to resolve the dispute through notice and report.
Subjects
- land ceiling
- writ petition
- non‑joinder
- clerical error
- rectification
- collector
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15776 of 2019
======================================================
Bharti Jha @ Bharti Devi Wife of Late Gyaneshwar Jha R/o Village-
Barharwa, P.S. Chanpatiya, District-West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah
2. The Collector West Champaran at Bettiah
3. The Sub Divisional Officer Bettiah
4. The Additional Collector Bettiah
5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector Bettiah
6. The Circle Officer Sikta, District-Bettiah
7. The Circle Officer Chanpatiya, both District-West Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aditya Nath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha (Sc19)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
7 09-02-2026 Heard Mr. Aditya Nath Jha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs
quashing the notification contained in
Annexure-2 of this application passed in Land
Ceiling Case No.35/1975-76 and for a
direction to the respondents to abstain
themselves from taking steps to acquire or
distribute the landa detailed in Annexure-4
which are lands of petitioner's husband and
were subject matter of land Ceiling Case No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15776 of 2019(7) dt.09-02-2026
2/4
340 of 1975-76 initiated against petitioner's
husband but wrongly clubbed with the lands of
Laxmeshwar Jha against whom land Ceiling
Case No. 35/1975-76 was initiated.
3. The petitoner is widow of the land holder
Gyaneshwar Jha who faced the Land Ceiling Case No. 35/1975-76
in West Champaran relating to lands which is placed at Sikta, West
Champaran.
4. The widow’s husband’s uncle, Laxmeshwar Jha was
also part of the said proceeding and the lands which were released
in their favour have been brought on record by way of Annexure-1
and 2.
5. The contention is that certain piece of land in
Mangalpur Sikta of different khatas and khesras have been
incorporated both in the gazette publication of the petitioner’s
husband as also her husband’s uncle, Laxmeshwar Jha causing
complete confusion to the family. The contention is that those
lands were actually allotted to them under the family consensus
and as such the same has to be removed from the list of the land
released in favour of Laxmeshwar Jha.
6. At the outset, learned State counsel points out that
though the petitioner is claiming release of the land which also
finds incorporated in the land details of Laxmeshwar Jha, he/heirs
Patna High Court CWJC No.15776 of 2019(7) dt.09-02-2026
3/4
have not been made party respondents in the case and as such, the
writ petition is fit to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary
parties. The contention in the counter affidavit is that this may lead
to re-opening of the land ceiling proceeding.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
said mistake has occurred but it will suffice that the respondents
who themselves have committed wrong by incorporating the same
land in both the notification of the widow’s husband as also
Laxmeshwar Jha should look into the matter and pass a reasoned
order.
8. This Court has gone through the land details of
widow’s husband as also that of Laxmeshwar Jha. Admittedly, the
some of the same lands have been recorded in both the columns of
the widow’s husband as also the uncle of the widow’s husband.
Deciding that which of the inclusion is correct, in the opinion of
the court is not re-opening of the land proceeding inasmuch as, it
can be clerical mistake which has to be rectified but only after
hearing all the stake holders including the Laxmeshwar Jha, his
heirs.
9. Learned State counsel has rightly pointed out the writ
petition has been filed in the year 2019, seven years have lapsed,
the petitioner’s claims that the entry in the land of Laxmeshwar
Jha is incorrect, surprisingly, he/heirs have not been made party
Patna High Court CWJC No.15776 of 2019(7) dt.09-02-2026
4/4
respondents in the writ petition.
10. The writ petition on this count should have been
dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties. However, in the
interest of justice and since the coordinate benches earlier took
note of the aforesaid error in the record, it would be appropriate
that the petitioner approaches the Collector, West Champaran,
respondent no.2 with the prayer/supporting documents who shall
be issuing notice to the stake holders, getting a report and shall be
taking a reasoned decision.
11. It is once again made clear that the aforesaid order/
observation is only restricted to error in the record which the
petitioner has shown that the same piece of land has been recorded
in the list of released land to her husband vis-a-vis Laxmeshwar
Jha. The petitioner shall not be allowed to agitate any further point
in the representation that is to be filed by the her/heirs before the
respondent no.2, the Collctor, West Champaran.
12. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…