Patna High Court
Sudhir Kumar Mahto @ Sudhir KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The order dated 25‑06‑2022 restraining construction is set aside as there is no pending encroachment proceeding, and the petitioners may proceed with construction.
Summary
The petitioners, Sudhir Kumar Mahto and Sunil Kumar Mahto, obtained a favorable decree in Title Suit No. 160 of 2008 under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, confirming their title to a parcel of land, but no amendment was made in the revenue records (RS Khatiyan). In 2022 the Circle Officer, Behari, Darbhanga, issued an order restraining the petitioners from any construction on the land, alleging it belonged to the State of Bihar, despite the absence of any encroachment proceeding or notice to the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the earlier decree had not been challenged and that the Circle Officer’s order was therefore unlawful and unsupported by any procedural requirement. The State, through its AC, acknowledged the petitioners’ reliance on the 2009 decree but did not dispute the lack of an encroachment case. The High Court held that, since no encroachment proceeding was pending and the order merely extended a one‑month restriction without basis, it could not be sustained. Consequently, the Court set aside the Circle Officer’s order and directed that the petitioners be allowed to carry out construction on the land, allowing the writ application.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Circle Officer’s order restraining construction on land already adjudicated in favor of the petitioners under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act.
- Whether the absence of an encroachment proceeding or notice renders the restraining order ultra vires.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Tenancy Act — s. 106
Subjects
- Tenancy Act
- Section 106
- land title
- encroachment proceeding
- summary proceeding
- civil writ jurisdiction
- RS Khatiyan
- construction restriction
- order set aside
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16307 of 2022
======================================================
1. Sudhir Kumar Mahto @ Sudhir Kumar Son of Late Mohanji Mahto @
Mohan Prasad, Resident of Village- Ward No. 07, Baheri, P.S.- Baheri,
District- Darbhanga.
2. Sunil Kumar Mahto @ Sunil Kumar Son of Late Mohanji Mahto @ Mohan
Prasad, Resident of Village- Ward No. 07, Baheri, P.S.- Baheri, District-
Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
2. District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
3. Circle Officer, Behari, Darbhanga.
4. Thana In-charge, P.S.- Behari, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Shama Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Vijayansh Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Navnit Kumar, AC to GP-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-06-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned AC to GP-18 for the State.
2. The very short contention of the petitioners is that
in a summary proceeding the Circle Officer has taken into
Patna High Court CWJC No.16307 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
2/4
account the fact that though an order has been passed in favour
of the petitioners in Title Suit No. 160 of 2008 initiated under
Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, however, since there was
no consequential corrections/amendments made in the RS
Khatiyan, therefore, the petitioners were stopped from making
any construction over the land in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
there being an order passed in favour of the petitioners way
back in the year 2009 and thereafter on a frivolous application
by one person, the Circle Officer has stopped any construction
over the land in question, stating the same to be the land
belonging to the State of Bihar, however, there is nothing on
record to show that the land belongs to the Government of
Bihar. Rather, the order passed in favour of the petitioner in the
year 2009 has not been challenged.
4. It has further been pointed out that even if there is
an application for any encroachment, then the Circle Officer
was bound to initiate an encroachment proceeding against the
petitioners, however, no such proceeding was initiated and the
petitioners till date have not received any notice to such effect.
It has next been submitted that though in pursuance to the said
order stopping the petitioners from carrying out any
Patna High Court CWJC No.16307 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
3/4
construction was passed in the year 2022, however, without
there being any further proceedings, the petitioners are not
allowed to carry out any construction over the said land.
5. Learned AC to GP-18 submits that the petitioners
rely on the order passed in the proceedings under Section 106 of
the Bihar Tenancy Act passed in Title Suit No. 160 of 2008 and
from the perusal of the same, it seems that the name and
signature of the Presiding Officer are not reflected in the said
order, however, he does not dispute the fact that no
encroachment case has ever been initiated against the
petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions forwarded
by the parties and taking into account the fact that pursuant to
the order restraining the petitioners from carrying out any
construction over the land in question, no encroachment case
has been initiated till date, this Court finds that there is no point
continuing with the said order, which admittedly had granted
one month's time during which the construction was stopped.
7. In view of the above, the order dated 25.06.2022
passed by the Circle Officer, Behari, Darbhanga, is set aside.
8. The authorities are directed not to disturb the
petitioners in carrying out any further construction over the land
Patna High Court CWJC No.16307 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
4/4
in question, especially when there is no proceeding pending
against them.
9. The present application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.06.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.