Patna High Court
Upendra Nath TiwariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioners must first obtain a computerized jamabandi to protect their title.
Summary
The petitioners, descendants of Late Sukdeo Tiwari, claimed continuous peaceful possession of a 7.16 dhur land in Harihas village, which was settled in their favour by a settlement order dated 16‑01‑1963 and for which they have been paying revenue rent. They alleged that the Circle Officer, without prior notice, measured the land for a PACS go‑down, threatening their possession, and sought mandamus to restrain any disposal, construction, or acquisition of the land without due process. The court observed that the petitioners had not pursued the statutory remedy of obtaining a computerized jamabandi, which is the appropriate administrative avenue to confirm their title. While acknowledging the historical settlement and continuous rent payments, the court found the writ petition lacked merit as the petitioners could secure their rights through the jamabandi process. Consequently, the court directed the petitioners to apply for a computerized jamabandi and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, can be granted by a writ of mandamus to prevent alleged dispossession of land that has been settled in favour of the petitioners?
- Whether the petitioners have exhausted the administrative remedy of obtaining a computerized jamabandi before approaching the High Court.
Subjects
- land settlement
- mandamus
- possession
- acquisition
- jamabandi
- revenue rent
- administrative remedy
- dispossession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1682 of 2026
======================================================
1. Upendra Nath Tiwari
2. Satendra Tiwari @ Satyendra Tiwari
3. Shailendra Tiwari
4. Rajendra Tiwari
All the above are sons of Late Sukdeo Tiwari.
5. Rohan Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Nagendra Tiwari
All are resident of Village- Harihans, P. S. -Husainganj, District-Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Siwan.
2. The Additional Collector-cum-Addl. District Magistrate, Siwan.
3. The Circle Officer, Husainganj Anchal, Siwan.
4. The District Co-Operative Officer, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suresh Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sita Ram Yadav, GP 16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 Heard Mr. Suresh Mishra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, learned GP
16 for the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“i. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs. order/orders in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to disposes the
petitioners relating to the land situated at
Village/Mauza-Harihas, Tauzi No.5487, Thana
No.362, Khata No.428, Khesarn No.5831. Area-07
Patna High Court CWJC No.1682 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/4
Kattha 16 Dhur over which they are in peaceful
possession by constructing Bathan for animals and
cultivating the vegetable crops since about 1935
and paying revenue rent to the government after
creation of Jamabandi in the name of their
common ancestor namely Late Sukdeo Tiwari.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents not to proceed with
any work of construction over the land in question.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents without following
due process of acquisition and payment of
compensation not to proceed to take over the land
in question.
iv. For granting any other relief/reliefs
for which the petitioner found to be entitled for the
same.
v. To permit the petitioners to add any
relief or reliefs if the occasion arises.”
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are descendants of the
original settlee, in whose favour Settlement of Land Case No.
40 of 1959–60 was initiated. In the said proceeding, the Circle
Officer concerned recommended settlement of land bearing
Khata No. 428, Khesra No. 5831, measuring an area of 7.16
dhurs, which was finally adjudicated in accordance with law and
settled in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 16.01.1963.
The settlement proposal was duly approved by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Siwan, vide order dated 27.02.1962. The
petitioners have brought on record xerox copy of the certified
Patna High Court CWJC No.1682 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/4
copy of the entire order-sheet in respect of the settlement of
above numbered settlement case.
3. Learned counsel has further given information in
paragraph no.14 of the writ petition that local administration is
bent upon dispossessing the petitioners from the land in
question on the pretext of carrying out measurement of the said
land. It has further been stated in paragraph no. 10 that the
Circle Officer and the Amin of the Circle Office, Hussainganj,
visited the land in question and conducted measurement thereof
without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners, allegedly for
the purpose of construction of a PACS go-down.
4. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition
under a bona fide apprehension that they may be illegally
dispossessed from the land in question, which had been duly
settled in their favour long back in the year 1963. The
petitioners have been in continuous and peaceful possession of
the said land and since then they have been regularly paying
rent, in support of which several rent receipts have been brought
on record. The Circle Officer has attempted to dispossess the
petitioners, instead of generating jamabandi in respect of the
land over which the petitioners are in lawful possession.
5. Considering the nature of the dispute, I find that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1682 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
4/4
petitioners have not availed remedy of obtaining a computerized
Jamabandi and, instead, they have preferred the present writ
petition under the garb of an apprehended threat of
dispossession by the Circle Officer. I do not find that the writ
petition deserves any merit. However, the petitioners have been
able to make out a case that they have been in possession of the
land since long and the land had finally been settled in their
favour by a competent authority in the year 1963. Since then,
the petitioners have been continuously paying rent to the State
Government.
6. The petitioners, if so advised, may file an
application in the prescribed format for generation of a
computerized jamabandi in their favour, so as to enable them to
make uninterrupted payment of rent in respect of the land in
question, as fixed by the State Government long back.
7. With the above observation/direction, the present
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U
Checking your session…