Patna High Court
Bajo YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that it is premature to intervene and disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate if law and order is disturbed.
Summary
Petitioner Bajo Yadav filed a writ petition seeking to quash a letter issued by the Circle Officer directing maintenance of law and order over his ancestral land and to obtain a status‑quo direction pending the outcome of Title Suit No.110/2017. He alleged that local authorities, in collusion with private respondent Vikash Kumar, were attempting to dispossess him before the civil suit is decided. The State contended that the petitioner had filed a restoration application and that the title suit might be restored to its original file. The Court held that the matter is premature for judicial intervention and must be resolved by the appropriate civil court. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate if law and order is disturbed and disposed of the writ petition without granting the reliefs.
Issues considered
- Whether the Circle Officer's letter directing maintenance of law and order over the disputed land is within jurisdiction and can be quashed.
- Whether a status‑quo direction should be granted pending the final disposal of Title Suit No.110/2017.
- Whether the petitioner should be directed to approach the District Magistrate for relief in case of disturbance of law and order.
Subjects
- land dispute
- title suit
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
- status quo
- restoration
- civil court
- law and order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1867 of 2026
======================================================
Bajo Yadav Son of Mahendra Yadav, Resident of Village Belatikur (Kamlu),
P.O.- Digghi, Police Station- Laxmipur, District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Land and Reforms, Bihar, at
New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, P.S.- Shashtrinagar, District- Patna 800015.
3. The District Magistrate, Jamui, P.O. and P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Jamui, at P.O., P.S. and District- Jamui.
5. The Circle Officer, Laxmipur, P.O. and P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui.
6. The Station House Officer (SHO), Laxmipur, P.O. and P.S.- Laxmipur, Dis-
trict- Jamui.
7. Vikash Kumar, S/O Late Ram Sundar Yadav, Resident of Village Belatikur
(Kamlu), P.O.- Digghi, Police Station- Laxmipur, District- Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arif Daula Siddique, AC to SC-20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 05-02-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel ap-
pearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Arif Daula Siddique
learned AC to SC-20 for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
"(i) For quashing the impugned letter no. 783
dated 22-08-2024 issued by the circle officer, Laxmipur,
Jamui to the officer in-charge by which it has been directed
to maintain the law and order over the land situated at
Mauza Kamlu, Thana no. 203/7, Khata No. 2, Khesara No.
366, Area- 48 decimal, Jamabandi No. 194 having its
boundary:
North- Harhi Sah
South- Rasta
East- Gujjar Yadav (Vikas Kumar)
West- Denma Santhal
Which is exclusive ancestral property of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1867 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
petitioner as such the impugned letter is without jurisdiction
and fit to be set aside.
(ii) Further for a direction to the respondents
authorities to maintain the status quo with regard to part of
land measuring an area of 4 decimal part of the said land in
question having it boundary:-
North- Harhi Sah
South- Rasta
East- Gujjar Yadav (Vikas Kumar)
West- Sukhdev Yadav / petitioner till final
disposal of Title Suit no. 110/ 2017 on merit which has been
filed for declaration of title and demarcation of land.
(iii) To grant any other relief/reliefs for which
the petitioner is entitled to get in the eye of law."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is aggrieved by the action of
the Circle Officer, Laxmipur, Jamui, who, at the behest of
private respondent no. 7, has taken action to dispossess the
petitioner in spite of the fact that the title suit filed in respect of
the land appertaining to Khata No. 2, Khesra No. 366 measuring
total area 48 decimal, situated at Mauza Kamlu, which has been
dismissed for non prosecution, for which restoration petition has
been filed being Miscellaneous Case No. 02 of 2026. Before the
Title Suit No. 110 of 2017 has been decided on merits, the
respondent no. 7 has tried to dispossess the petitioner from the
disputed land in connivance with the Circle Officer and S.H.O.,
Laxmipur. Petitioner claims that protection from the local
authorities must be provided to him, who are bent upon to
dispossess the petitioner from the land in question.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1867 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted
that the petitioner has admitted that he has already filed
application for restoration of the Title Suit No. 110 of 2017
being Miscellaneous Case No. 02 of 2026 and there is every
likelihood of the title suit being restored to its original file.
5. Heard the parties.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission/information,
it is pre-mature for the parties, particularly, for the petitioner and
the private respondent no. 7 to take any action to dispossess
each other from the land in question without resorting to
appropriate remedy before the concerned Civil Court having
jurisdiction.
7. However, so far the claim of the petitioner that
local authorities are bent upon to dispossess him from the land
in question, he may file application before the District
Magistrate having jurisdiction for taking necessary action, if any
law and order is disturbed, which has bad impact on the society.
8. With aforesaid observation/direction, the present
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U
Checking your session…