Patna High Court
Md. Khurshid and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners have adequate access to the road and therefore the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of residents, claimed that a road they have used since 1934 to access their houses was being closed by state authorities, and they sought a writ directing the authorities not to close the road. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and the Bihar State Building Construction Corporation, contended that the petitioners still have access to the road and that any dispute with private parties should be addressed before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate. The Corporation submitted that a new courtroom building and boundary wall had been constructed, but also produced a map showing the petitioners' access via a 5‑foot road connecting to wider roads leading to the market and ChandraGokul road. The Court examined the map, found that the petitioners indeed have access on both sides of the main road, and held that any grievance against private respondents must be raised before a competent authority. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners have a legal right to uninterrupted access to the road in question.
- Whether the State authorities' alleged closure of the road warrants issuance of a writ directing them not to close it.
Subjects
- road access
- public road
- writ jurisdiction
- property rights
- state authority
- civil writ
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18793 of 2018
======================================================
1. Md. Khurshid S/o late Md. Makbul Ahmad
2. Md. Samim Ahmad S/o late Ali Akbar
3. Shahabuddin Ekbal S/o late Md. Mustafa
4. Rizwan Ahmad S/o late Md. Mustafa
5. Ali Haider S/o late Makbul Ahmad
6. Md. Parwez Hassan S/o late Azimul Haque All are Resident of Village
Behind Registry Office and Old District Jail Gopalganj Ward No. 16 P.O.
P.S.Distt Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. The Principle Secretary building construction Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Patna Bihar.
4. The Collector Gopalganj.
5. The Deputy Collector Land Development Gopalganj.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj.
7. The Circle Officer, Gopalganj.
8. The Executive Officer Nagar Parishad Gopalganj.
9. M/s Saryug Gautam Construction Pvt. Ltd. Contractor Construction Made
through Bihar State Buildin
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastwa, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambastha, SC-26
Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, AC to SC-26
For the BSBCCL : Mr. Kumar Abhimanyu Pratap, Advocate
Ms. Rushali, Advocate
Ms. Sakshi Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 02-02-2026 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastwa, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambastha, SC-26 and
Ms. Rushali representing the Bihar State Building Construction
Patna High Court CWJC No.18793 of 2018(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
Corporation Ltd (for brevity, ‘the Corporation’).
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for directing the respondent authorities
to not closed the only one approached read which
is use and avail by the petitioners since 1934 for
coming and going in their houses by for father and
theirs ancestors with their family members and
relatives also in between behind registry office
Gopalganj and old District Jail Gopalganj to their
house situated as ward no. 16 khata no. 9, plot no.
42 and 42/1479.”
3. The matter relates to a land situated under ward no.
16 (Khata No. 9, Plot No. 42) behind the Registry Office,
Gopalganj/Old Jail Campus, Gopalganj) and the claim is that
they are residing since the year 1934 but their movement on the
road has been blocked by the State-Authorities, forcing them to
invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent nos. 4 to 7 and learned State counsel submits that
access to the road is available to the petitioners and if there is
any dispute with the private person, the remedy is to move
Patna High Court CWJC No.18793 of 2018(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj.
5. ‘The Corporation’ has also filed its affidavit stating
that the new Courtroom building has come up on the old jail and
the construction has already been completed alongwith a
boundary wall and the petitioners cannot claim access through
that security complex.
6. Ms. Rushali representing ‘the Corporation’ has
come up with a map provided by ‘the Corporation’ which shows
that the petitioners have access to a five feet road which merges
with a ten feet road on one side and six feet road on the other
side and both these roads have access to the market roads (Court
road) on the one side and ChandraGokul road on other.
7. Let the said map be kept on record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if
‘the Corporation’ has come up with this map showing their
access, as recorded above, they reserved their right to agitate
against private respondents.
9. This Court has recorded the facts, has also gone
through the map and is satisfied that the petitioners are having
access on the both sides of the main road and if there is any
grievance against private respondents, as per the State stand, can
always be agitated before a competent authority/Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18793 of 2018(4) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
10. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
11. Before parting, this Court would like to record its
word of appreciation for Ms. Rushali, learned counsel for ‘the
Corporation’ for the assistance rendered in the matter.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…