Patna High Court
Shyamdeo JhaversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court allowed the prayer for mandamus but directed the petitioner to approach the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate for implementation of the 2001 order.
Summary
The petitioner, Shyamdeo Jha, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to implement an order dated 13-11-2001 passed by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate ordering demolition of a hut on disputed land. The petition was filed twelve years after the order, and the State argued that a further 25 years had elapsed, making any relief impermissible. The petitioner contended that the appropriate remedy was to approach the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate for execution of the order. The Court examined whether the lapse of time barred the writ and whether the petitioner should seek relief from the lower authority. It held that the prayer for mandamus was allowed but directed the petitioner to approach the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to obtain the necessary implementation. The Court further advised that any remaining grievance should be pursued before the appropriate authority with notice and hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce an order passed twelve years earlier.
- Whether the lapse of 25 years bars the Court from granting relief.
- Whether the petitioner should approach the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate for implementation of the order.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- limitation period
- implementation of order
- land demarcation
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18706 of 2013
======================================================
Shyamdeo Jha S/O Sri Umakant Jha Resident Of Village- Shyampur, P.S-
Bath, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Collector, Bhagalpur, Distt- Bhagalpur.
3. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bhagalpur, Distt- Bhagalpur.
4. The Anchal Adhikari, Sultanganj, Distt- Bhagalpur.
5.1. Devendra Jha Husband of Late Sahinta Devi, Resident of Village -
Shyampur, Police Station - Bath, District- Bhagalpur.
5.2. Vishnukant Jha Son of late Sahinta Devi, Resident of Village - Shyampur,
Police Station - Bath, District- Bhagalpur.
5.3. Shashi Jha Son of Late Sahinta Devi, Resident of Village - Shyampur, Police
Station - Bath, District- Bhagalpur.
5.4. Chandra Shekhar Jha Son of late Sahinta Devi, Resident of Village -
Shyampur, Police Station - Bath, District- Bhagalpur.
5.5. Sanjay Jha Son of late Sahinta Devi, Resident of Village - Shyampur, Police
Station - Bath, District- Bhagalpur.
6. Mira Devi W/O Rajendra Jha Address Not Mentioned In List.
7. Anita Devi W/O Yogendra Jha Address Not Mentioned In List.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A. Ujjwal, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
10 05-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) For issuance of an appropriate
order/orders/direction/directions/ writ in the
nature of Mandamus directing and
Commanding to Respondents to implement
Patna High Court CWJC No.18706 of 2013(10) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
the order dtd 13-11-01 passedby the sub-
Divisional Magistrate Bhagalpur inM
Pno190/2000 (Shyam Deo Jha vs Sahina
devi and others aswellas notice dtd 20-11-
2002 issued by the Anchal adhikari
Sultanganj distt. Bhagalpur with regard t
oremoved the hut 10 dhurs of land of khesra
no507 under khara no 587 Thana 190 Mauza
Kumaitha by the Respondent no 5 to 7
(ii) And further be pleased to grant
other reliefs/reliefs as kim the petitioner is
entitled for.
3. An order came to be passed on 13.11.2001 in Misc.
Case No. 190 of 2000 (Shyam Deo Jha vs. Sahina Devi & ors.)
by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bhagalpur.
4. Twelve years later, the writ petition has been filed
for its implementation.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that 25 years
have been lapsed and in that background, it would be
appropriate that the petitioner approaches the respondent, Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bhagalpur for the needful. No
order can be passed in the said matter after the lapse of 25 years,
particularly when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar,
Bhagalpur had already directed the concerned Circle Officer to
take steps for demarcation of land in the presence of the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18706 of 2013(10) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they
shall be approaching the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar,
Bhagalpur (respondent no. 3) for the redressal of the grievance.
7. The aforesaid prayer is allowed.
8. The petitioner should prefer a petition if they still
have grievance before appropriate authority (the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar, Bhagalpur) who shall be looking into the
matter and after issuance of notices/hearing the parties, the same
be taken to its logical conclusion at an earliest.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…