Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ranjna DeviversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors

Decided
Disposal
CONSIGNED

Holding

The petition was dismissed, and no writ directing possession was issued.

Summary

Ranjna Devi, widow of Late Ram Kishun Bhagat, filed a writ petition seeking a court order directing the District Magistrate and other officials to hand over possession of land to her, in accordance with an order dated 19 April 2018 issued by the Deputy Collector (Land Reform) of Araria. Notices were served on the respondents (the son and widow of Late Jai Narayan Bhagat) on 25 November 2025, but the peremptory order was not complied with, leading to its dismissal on 9 December 2025. The High Court examined the file and, finding no merit in the petition, declined to issue any writ or direction for possession. Consequently, the reliefs sought by the petitioner were denied.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to possession of the land as per the 19 April 2018 order of the Deputy Collector (Land Reform).
  • Whether the court can issue a writ directing the respondents to hand over possession of the land.
  • Whether the non‑compliance with the peremptory order warrants dismissal of the petition.

Subjects

  • land possession
  • writ petition
  • land reform
  • peremptory order
  • civil writ jurisdiction

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18972 of 2018
                 ======================================================
                 Ranjna Devi Wife of Late Ram Kishun Bhagat, Resident of Village- Jokihat,
                 P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria.

                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State Of Bihar
           2.    The District Magistrate cum Collector, Araria.
           3.    The Deputy Collector Land Reform, Araria.
           4.    The Circle Officer Block- Jokihat, District- Araria.
           5.    The Officer in Charge of the Police Station Jokihat, District- Araria.
           6.    Pappu Bhagat @ Raj Kumar Bhagat, Son of Late Jai Narayan Bhagat,
                 Resident of Village- Jokihat, P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria.
           7.    Bachiya Devi, Wife of Late Jai Narayan Bhagat, Resident of Village-
                 Jokihat, P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State            :      Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   20-01-2026                    Heard the parties.

                                 2. The present petition has been preferred for the

                   grant of following relief(s):

                                                  “(i) for issuance of an appropriate

                                        writ/s, order/s, direction/s to respondent no. 2 to

                                        ensure that the possession of the land is handed

                                        over to the petitioner in compliance of the order

                                        dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned court of

                                        the deputy collector land reform Araria.

                                                  (ii) for issuance of any other writ
            Patna High Court CWJC No.18972 of 2018(4) dt.20-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                                         order or direction which the Hon'ble court may

                                         find appropriate in the facts and circumstances

                                         of the case.”

                                  3. In this case on 25.11.2025, notices were issued to

                      the respondent no. 6 and 7.

                                  4. As it was a peremptory order and not complied, it

                      stood dismissed on 09.12.2025.

                                  5. Perused the file, consigned.



                                                    (Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.