Patna High Court

Durgawati DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: RAJIV ROY

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioners suppressed material facts, failed to join necessary parties, and the dispute is sub‑judice before another court.

Summary

The petitioners, heirs of the late Rajmati Kuer, sought certiorari and mandamus to set aside an order dated 01‑11‑2024 of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Buxar, which they alleged was passed without notice and to restrain officials from interfering with their possession of ancestral land. The dispute stems from a title suit (No. 82/1987) and subsequent sale deeds allegedly executed fraudulently by respondent 7 and his successors, leading to a series of substitution petitions, a criminal revision, and a civil revision (No. 28/2022) that remains pending. The court observed that the petitioners had suppressed material facts, notably the pending civil revision and the fact that Ram Awadhesh Pandey, who challenged the SDM order, was not impleaded. Because the matter involves factual disputes already before another court, the writ jurisdiction was deemed inappropriate. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, the interim protection vacated, and any pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 01‑11‑2024 passed by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Buxar, is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Whether the petitioners’ failure to disclose pending civil and criminal revisions and to join necessary parties warrants dismissal of the writ petition.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition given the pendency of Civil Revision No. 28 of 2022.
Whether mandamus can be issued against the Collector and S.H.O. to restrain them from acting on the impugned order.
Whether the interim protection granted on 19‑12‑2024 should be vacated.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151, Order 22 Rule 3, Order 9 Rule 4
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 145, 146(1)

Subjects

land dispute
writ petition
certiorari
mandamus
sub‑division magistrate
non‑joinder of parties
suppression of material facts
civil revision
criminal revision
possession
ancestral land

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19009 of 2024
======================================================
1. Durgawati Devi W/o Suresh Pandey, D/o Late Munni Lal Pandey, resident
of Village- Shivpur, Araji English, P.O.and PS - Lal Ganj District- Ballia,
Uttar Pradesh.
2. Smt. Kamlawati Devi, W/o Madan Mohan Pandey, D/o Late Munni Lal
Pandey, Resident of Village- Jhaua, P.O.- Belwania, PS- Behia District-
Bhojpur.
3. Asharfi Devi, W/o Sri Ram Pandey, D/o Late Munni Lal Pandey Resident of
Village- Jhaua, P.O.- Belwaria, P.S. Bihia, District- Bhojpur.
4. Ashok Kumar Pandey S/o Late Kripa Shankar Pandey, Resident of Mohalla
- Chitragupt Road, Bhrigu Ashram, Ballia, District- Ballia, Uttar Pradesh.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar.
2. The Collector of the District, Buxar, At and PO.- Buxar, Bihar.
3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buxar, At and P.O- Buxar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar, At and P.O- Buxar.
5. The Anchal Adhikari, Buxar, At and P.O - Buxar.
6. The S.H.O., Industrial Area, Buxar, P.O and P.S - Buxar.
7. Ramakant Pandey, S/o Late Ramjas Pandey, Resident of Village - Nari P.O
and P.S - Narhi, District- Ballia, Uttar Pradesh
8. Jitendra Nath Rai@ Lallu Rai S/o Late Ram Nath Rai, Resident of Village-
Baghauna, PS - Narhi, District - Ballia, Uttar Pradesh.
9. Sudhir Kumar Rai S/o Late Batuk Nath Rai, Resident of Village and P.O
Narhi, District- Ballia, Uttar Pradesh.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4
For resp. nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. Manu Tripurari, Adv.
Mr. Apurv Harsh, Adv.
Mr. Sujit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Hritik Anand, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER

5 15-04-2026 Heard Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh, learned

counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manu Tripurari for respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
2/20

nos. 7 to 9 besides learned State Counsel.

A) PRAYER:

2. The present application has been preferred for the

following relief(s):

(i) for issuance of writ/writs in the
nature certiorari for quashing and setting a site
of the order dated 01.11.2024 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Buxar, Bihar in land
dispute related Case No. 31/2024 vide
Annexure-P/9, the order impugned on the basis
of one application dt. 14.10.2024 filed by
Jitendra Nath Rai, Resp. No.8 & 9 without imp
lead them as necessary parties to the
Petitioners.
(ii) Further for issuance of writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the
authorities Resp. No. 5 & 6 not to proceed in the
matter by way of illegal order dated 01-11-2024
passed by Resp. No.3 not to dispossessed from
the ancestor land/house of the petitioners
situated at village-Sahopara, Tarapura of Khata
No. 25, Plot No. 6 & 4, over an area - 1.23
Acres and Sahopra Mauza, Khata No. 101, Plot
No.77 and 150 area-0.83 decimal of
(ⅲ) As a consequence to the first
relief on being granted during pendency of writ
petition interim relief by way of direction the
respondent be restrained not to interfere the
possession of Petitioners from their ancestral
village house/ land and give full protection
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
3/20

through the state officials. So that they may
resume their farming activities over adjoining
Raiyati land along with the house situated.
iv) Further consequential relief it be
directed that even if any kind of illegal acts is
committed by the respondents by Resp. No. 7 to
9 dispossessed through antisocial elements from
the ancestral land/house. The possession of the
petitioners will be restore by give full protection
under law.
v) Further consequential relief writ
be issue directing the state and its official
concerns to pay exemplainary damages and
compensation amounting quantifying at Rs.
50,000,00/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the
petitioners due to illegal interferences to remove
/ demolish the constructed house/ land of the
petitioners under the facts and circumstances of
the case.
vi) Any other relief/ reliefs to which
the petitioners are found entitled be granted.
B) FACTS/ CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. The matter relates to a piece of land in the Village-

Sahopara, Tarapura under Circle and district Buxar with the

following details:

(a) khata no.- 25; plot no. 6 & 4 (area-
1.23 acres) and;
(b) khata no.- 101, plot no.- 77 (area-
0.83 decimal).
4. The short facts of the case are as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
4/20

5. A Title Suit No. 82/1987 was filed by one Most.

Rajmati Kuer w/o late Munni Lal Pandey on 17.06.1987 against

the Defendant-respondent No. 7 (who is younger brother of 2nd

daughter's husband) for a declaration that the defendant/

respondent no. 7 have no right, title, interest on the basis of

alleged four Sale deeds of land which have been taken over

under fraudulent conditions without consideration and is not

binding upon plaintiff.

6. The contention is/was that when she got knowledge

about the fraudulent act committed by defendent/ respondent

No. 7, she got it cancelled through the Registrar, Buxar vide an

order 21.03.1987 and thereafter, filed a proper suit for

declaration of title and confirmation of possession.

7. Immediately after the filing of T.S. No. 82/1987,

the sole plaintiff, Most. Rajmati Kuer died on 07.09.1987

leaving behind seven daughters, out of whom, the last daughter

Durgawati Devi remained unmarried and performed the last

rites with the help of the friend of her uncle, namely Shri Niwas

Pandey. Upon the knowledge about the Title Suit, she appeared

through him by filing petition for substitution under order 22

rule 3 C.P.C. on 30.10.1987.

8. Later, one of the daughter, Chinta Devi, wife of
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
5/20

Kripa Shankar Pandey also died on 31.10.1987 leaving behind

her two sons who also filed substitution petition on 09.12.1987

stating therein that both are the legal heirs/legal representative

of deceased maternal grandmother, Most. Rajmati Kuer.

Thereafter another daughter, namely Smt. Indrawati Devi also

filed substitution petition on 10.12.1987.

9. The contention is that the respondent no. 7,

Ramakant Pandey who with bad intention and wanted to usurp

the landed property on the basis of alleged Sale Deed filed a

petition before the S.D.O./ S.D.M., Buxar in case no. 1361 (M)

1986 u/s 146 (1) of C.R.P.C. for attachment of the property and

appointment of the receiver. In the said case, an order under 145

Cr.P.C. was passed by the S.D.O. Buxar in his favour.

10. Thereafter, Cr. Misc. No. 7721/1989 preferred

against the said order and after hearing the parties, this Court

vide an order dated 08.09.1989 was pleased to set a aside the

impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Buxar.

11. Later, the defendant respondent no. 7 preferred an

application for mutation before the Circle Officer, Buxar on the

basis of alleged documents which was allowed. The Additional

Collector, Buxar dismissed the petition preferred against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
6/20

order whereafter a Revision case 30/1995-96 was preferred

before the court of Commissioner, Patna Division which was

ultimately dismissed by order dated 01.10.1996.

12. The case of the petitioners are that thereafter, the

defendant/ Respondent No.7 fraudulently executed two

registered sale deeds in favour of respondent nos. 8 & 9 over an

area of 2.6 acres of land in the year 2014-15 without obtaining

mutation order and without seeking permission of the

consolidation court which is/are mandatory under the

consolidation act.

13. The case is that the petitioners filed for

substitution on different dates as all of them were married in

different villages and due to that, it was not easy to

communicate with each other as also some confusion of their

family cropped up of their own sister as a result of which all of

them were not properly pursuing case.

14. The suit was dismissed for default on 21.06.2002.

After sometime, this fact was brought to the notice of one of the

daughter, Durgawati Devi. She at once filed a Misc. case No.

51/2002 dated 03.09.2002 under order 9 rule 4 and 151 C.P.C.

for restoration of the suit stating therein that she has got

knowledge about the dismissal of the case on 30.08.2002. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
7/20

suit was restored to its original file after due process of law vide

order dated 09.10.2004.

15. Meanwhile, the sale deed by respondent No. 7 was

executed in favour of respondents 8 & 9 in the year 2014-15 and

they filed a petition for mutation before the Circle Officer,

Buxar which was allowed ex parte without any notice to the

petitioners. Against that mutation order, the cousin of the

petitioner filed a case before the D.C.L.R. for setting aside the

mutation order which was however, affirmed by the D.C.L.R.

Buxar.

16. It was again challenged before the learned

Collector, Buxar who after hearing the parties set aside the

Mutation Order as well as the D.C.L.R. order in Case No.

162/2017 and remitted the case to the court of D.C.L.R. Buxar

for fresh hearing.

17. The respondents herein preferred Civil Revision

no. 28/2022 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the order

dated 19.06.2022. Notices were issued to the respondent

petitioners and in the mean time, further proceeding of T.S. No.

82/1987 was stayed till further order vide an order dated

10.02.2023.

18. Further, on 14.10.2024, the respondent No.8
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
8/20

Jitendra Nath Rai claiming purchase of land (measuring 1.23

acres of land of Khata No. 25, Plot No. 3 & 4, area 83 decimals

of land of Khata No. 101, Plot No. 77 & 150 through the Resp.

No.7 Ramakant Pandey) obstructed one Ram Awadhesh Pandey,

the cousin brother of petitioner.

19. On the same day, the respondent No.3, the

S.D.M., Buxar issued a notice to the parties. However, the

petitioners were not made a party and contention is that without

service of notice the matter was fixed for 14.10.2024 for

appearance of the parties along with the documents of the

landed property, which is under dispute.

20. The contention is that an order came to be passed

on 01.11.2024 by the respondent no.3 giving a direction to the

Police to provide protection to the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

21. The contention is that the said order is an illegal

order, they were not noticed and as such, any order behind their

back need interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that an appropriate order need to be passed in their

favour and against the respondent no. 7 to 9.

C) CASE OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 7 to 9:

22. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the

respondent nos. 7 to 9 and the learned counsel has drawn
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
9/20

attention of this Court to the following facts:

23. The petitioners filed Title suit no 82 of 1987 as

also the Criminal Revision no. 148 of 2024 preferred against

their first cousin, Ram Awadhesh Pandey.

24. However, the petitioners, under the garb of this

writ petition want recovery/ possession of the land in question.

The submission is that they are out of possession since

03.03.1987, when late Rajmati Kuer, wife of Late Munnilal

Pandey sold the same for valuable considerations to Respondent

no. 7, Ramakant Pandey through four registered sale deeds, all

dated 03.03.1987 and put the purchaser (R-7 Ramakant Pandey)

in the possession of the same.

25. The petitioners have no locus-standi to maintain a

writ case till they get themselves substituted in place of sole

Plaintiff, late Rajmati Kuer in Title suit no. 82 of 1987 [Rajmati

Kuer vs Ramakant Pandey and others] and succeeds in getting a

decree for the reliefs prayed therein.

26. The contention is that the case is bad for

supressing the material facts regarding filing of the aforesaid

criminal revision by Ram Awadhesh Pande challenging the same

very order. The petitioners have also suppressed the fact that

few daughters of late Rajmati Devi have sold some of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
10/20

disputed lands during the pendency of Title Suit.

27. The case of the respondents is/are that the

petitioners have been set up by Srinivas Pandey and his sons

specially Ramawdhesh Pandey, who is a land broker and is

contesting the matter by filing appeal and petitions has also

challenged the impugned order by filing a Criminal Revision

Petition before the learned Sessions Judge.

28. The further case of the respondents is/are that one

Har-Prasad Pandey died leaving behind two sons, namely

Munnilal Pandey and Srinivas Pandey. Munnilal Pandey, who

was separated from his brother, died leaving behind his wife,

Rajmati Kuer and some daughters, whose names, number and

identity are still not known. His wife, Rajmati Kuer also died on

07.09.1987.

29. Srinivas Pandy had five sons namely Ram

Awadhesh Pandey, Dinesh Pandey, Sanjay Pandey, Rakesh

Pandey and Rajesh Pandey. Rajmati Kuer sold the lands under

dispute, measuring about 2 Acre 32 Decimal to Respondent no.

7 Ramakant Pandey for valuable considerations through four

registered sale deeds, all dated 03.03.1987 and put the purchaser

in the possession of the same and he continued in the possession

of the same till he sold the lands to Respondents no. 8 and 9.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
11/20

30. Few months later, a suit bearing T.S. No. 82 of

1987 was filed under most suspicious circumstances, in the

court of Sub-Judge Buxar on 17.06.1987, showing aforesaid

Rajmati Kunwar, wife of late Munnilal Pandey as sole plaintiff

and Ramakant Pandey as defendant for declaration that all the

four sale deeds are forged and have conferred no title to the

purchaser and the same be set aside.

31. The contention is that the plaint, although contains

a blurred thumb impression purported to be put by said Rajmati

Kuer and has been signed in the pen of said Srinivas Pandey but

it has neither been verified nor affidavited by the plaintiff in

accordance with the provisions of law laid down under order 14

and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, the plaintiff,

shortly after filing of the suit died on 07.09.1987. Thereafter, the

race for getting substituted as legal heir of late Rajmati kuer

started in the suit.

32. On 30-10-1987, one Durgawati Devi, claiming

herself to be minor daughter of original Plaintiff, Raj Mati Kuer

filed a petition under Order 22 Rule 3 through her aforesaid

uncle, Shrinivas Pandey as guardian that her mother, Rajmati

Kunwar [the plaintiff] died on 07-09-1987 leaving behind her

daughters, namely, Durgawati Devi herself, Asharfi Kunwar
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
12/20

wife of Shri Ram Pandey, Kamlawati wife of Madan Ji Pandey

and Fransisi Kunwar.

33. Accordingly, the petitioner no. 1 prayed that she

may be substituted in place of plaintiff while her above named

sisters be made defendants in the suit. It may be added here that

the petition although recites the dates put under signatures to be

30.10.1987 but the order sheet indicates that it had been filed on

07.03.1988.

34. Further, on 09.12.1987, one Ashok Kumar Pandey,

Jhuna Pandey and Munna Pandey, minor sons of Kripa Shankar

Pandey filed joint petition through their father and natural

guardian that the original plaintiff, Rajmati Kunwar died on

07.09.1987 and she was their ‘Nani’ as she had daughters only.

35. It has been further been stated that Chinta Devi,

(since dead) their mother was the eldest daughter of the original

plaintiff, late Rajmati Kunwar and she was married with said

Kripa Shankar Pandey. She died on 31st October, 1987. It has

been further stated that one Anjani Devi @ Angani Devi was

another daughter of plaintiff, Rajmati Kunwar, she was married

with one Shrikant Pandey, son of Ram Yas Pandey of Village &

PS- Narahi, District- Balia and a daughter Saroj Kumari was

born to her.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
13/20

36. After the death of Anjani Kumari, said Shrikant

Pandey was married with another daughter, Indrawati Devi of

original plaintiff, Rajmati Kunwar. The fourth daughter of

original plaintiff was Durgawati Devi. Based on aforesaid facts,

the said petitioners prayed for substitution of their names in

place of original plaintiff.

37. On 10-12-1987, one Indrawati Devi, wife of

Shrikant Pandey and Saroj Kumari, minor daughter of Shrikant

Pandey filed a joint petition for adding their names under Order

1 Rule 10 of the CPC as a plaintiff. It has been stated that the

first marriage of Srikant Pandey was solemnised with one

Anjani Devi @ Angani Devi and out of this wedlock, said Saroj

Kumari was born. After the death of said Anjani Devi, Shrikant

Pandey was married with Indrawati Devi, another daughter of

original plaintiff Rajmati Kuer.

38. Accordingly, Indravati and Saroj have prayed for

substitution of their names in place of plaintiff. In the petition,

names of some more heirs, namely Chinta Devi wife of

Kripashankar Pandey and Kumari Durgawati have been

recorded. The case further records that Chintamani too died in

the month of October 1987 leaving behind Ashok Kumar

Pandey, Jhuna Pandey and Munna Pandey as her heirs. In view
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
14/20

of aforesaid facts both petitioners made prayer for impleading as

plaintiffs.

39. The case is that the suit was dismissed for default

on 21.06.2002. Thereafter, Shrinivas Pandey filed a petition

supported with an affidavit under section 151 of the Code of

Civil Procedure to re-call the aforesaid order of dismissal dated

21.06.2002 and hearing the substitution petition filed by the

parties. The date of filing of this petition is torn in the original

file. It appears from the sequence of the orders that it has been

filed some times in the month of June or July in 2002 i.e., in

between 21.06.2002[date of dismissal of the suit] and 17.7.2002

to which date this petition had been adjourned for hearing.

40. The petition, after due hearing, was dismissed on

07.08.2002. The learned court while rejecting the prayer

observed that the petitioner [Shrinivas Pandey] is not a legal

heir of late Rajmati Kuer, rather he is a purchaser from Fransisi

Devi and others purported daughter of original plaintiff, late

Rajmati kuer and on this basis, he wants to get himself

substituted as a plaintiff which is impermissible under law.

41. On 03.09.2002, a petition under order 9 rule 4

read with section 151 of the Code was filed by said Durgawati

Devi. It was allowed, without hearing the parties which was
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
15/20

challenged by filing Civil Revision petition bearing 31 of 2017

before this Court.

42. Ramakant Pandey meanwhile sold the following

lands to the respondent no. 8, Jitendra Kumar Rai and

respondent no. 9, Sudhir Kumar Rai vide registered sale deeds

dated 19.11.2014 and they got themselves added as co-

defendants in the suit.

Mauza khata no. plot no. area

Tarapur 95 6 1-03D

4 0-20D

Total…. 1A-2D

Sahpur 101 77+150 0-83D

43. On 06.10.2015, Durgawati Devi & 6 others filed a

joint petition to substitute them in place of original plaintiff

Rajmati Kuer (since dead). The Respondent no. 7 Ramakant

Pandey, by filing rejoinder dated 14.03.2018 opposed the move.

44. The contention is that the learned Sub-Judge

Buxar, without taking notice of his earlier order dated

11.01.1989 and without recording any finding as to who are the

heirs/legal representatives of the original Plaintiff late Rajmati

and also on the point of abatement, allowed the substitution
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
16/20

petition by an order dated 19.04. 2022, decades after the death

of late Raj Mati Kuer.

45. The Respondents no. 7 to 9 thereafter

challenged the said order by filing CR no. 28 of 2022 and

Patna High Court stayed the order dated 19.04.2022.

46. Thus, the sum and substance of the aforesaid case

of respondents is/are that:

(i) during the pendency of the C.R. No. 28 of 2022,

Ram Awadhesh Pandey created problem which followed the

petition and the order dated 01.11.2024 passed by the SDM,

Buxar;

(ii) Ram Awadhesh Pandey already challenged the

said order date 01.11.2024 by filing Criminal Revision No. 148

of 2024 before the Competent Sessions Court;

(iii) this fact has been suppressed by the petitioners in

the present petititons;

(iv) despite the battle having been fought before the

learned SDM, Buxar with Ram Awadhesh Pandey, he has not

been impleaded as party respondent;

(iv) as such, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

D) FINDINGS:

47. This Court has taken note of the facts of the case
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
17/20

as also the submissions put forward by the the respective

parties. The matter relates to T.S. No. 82 of 1987 preferred by

Most. Rajmati Kuer, mother/ grandmother of the petitioners

herein. She died in the year 1987 itself.

48. This followed substitution petitions being

preferred by her daughter, grand sons. It was dismissed for

default, restored. It seems around two decades later, on the

petition filed by Durgawati Devi and others (in the year 2015)

for substituting them in place of Durgawati Devi was allowed

on 19.04.2022.

49. Admittedly, Civil Revision No. 28 of 2022

(Ramakant Pandey vs. Durgawati Devi & ors.) has been

preferred by the present respondents challenging the said order

dated 19.04.2022 passed in the Title Suit No. 82 of 1987 by the

learned Sub-Judge, Buxar. In the said case, a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court vide an order dated 10.02.2023 stayed the

further proceeding of Title Suit No. 82 of 1987.

50. It is the case of the respondents that in the

meantime, frustrated with the stay order by the Patna High

Court one Ram Awadhesh Pandey tried to dispossess them from

the land in question which led to Land Dispute Case No. 31 of

2024 and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buxar, Sadar vide an
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
18/20

order dated 01.11.2024 taking note of Civil Revision No. 28 of

2022 recorded that till the said Civil Revision is pending before

Patna High Court, Ram Awadhesh Pandey is restrained from

creating any trouble (Annexure- P/9 to the petition).

51. The counter affidavit of the respondents shows

that aggrieved by the said order, Ram Awadhesh Pandey moved

before the Competent Sessions Court in Cr. Revision No. 148

of 2024 (Ram Awadhesh Pandey vs. State of Bihar & ors.).

However, for the reasons best known to the petitioners, they

suppressed these facts in the present petition and also chose not

to implead Ram Awadhesh Pandey as party respondent in the

case.

52. Thus, the facts that emerges are that:

(i) the litigation between the petitioners
and the respondents herein have moved from the
Title Court to the Civil Revision No. 28 of 2022 in
which a stay has been granted and is continuing
till date;
(ii) one Ram Awadhesh Pandey tried to
disturb the possession of the respondents which led
to the Land Dispute Case No. 31 of 2024 and on
01.11.2024, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buxar
allowed the petition after recording that during the
pendency of the Civil Revision No. 28 of 2022,
Ram Awadhesh Pandey is restrained from creating
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
19/20

any trouble.
(iii) aggrieved by the said order, Ram
Awadhesh Pandey moved before the Competent
Sessions Court in Cr. Revision No. 148 of 2024.
53. Further, though the petitioners are challenging the

said order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buxar in

Land Dispute Case No. 31 of 2024 dated 01.11.2024 which was

fought between the respondents herein and Ram Awadhesh

Pandey, knowingly, Ram Awadhesh Pandey has not been made

party respondent in the case and also suppressed this fact in the

writ petition that Ram Awadhesh Pandey has challenged the

order before the learned Sessions Court.

54. Further, the respondents herein are enjoying stay

in the Civil Revision No. 28 of 2022 which is within the

knowledge of the petitioners being the respondents in the said

case.

55. In that background, instead of approaching the

concerned Court by filing an appropriate Interlocutory

Application and/or appearing along with Ram Awadhesh Pandey

before the Competent Sessions Court where the order dated

01.11.2024 has been challenged by him, the petitioners invoked

the writ jurisdiction of this Court without even informing this

Court that the battle has been taken to the learned Sessions
Patna High Court CWJC No.19009 of 2024(5) dt.15-04-2026
20/20

Court, as recorded above.

56. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioners have

suppressed the material facts from the High Court and as Ram

Awadhesh Pandey has also not made party in this case, it is fit to

be dismissed for suppression of material facts as also non-

joinder of necessary parties.

57. In the further opinion of this Court, disputed

question of facts are involved in the present case which cannot

be decided in a writ petition. In that background, this Court do

not find any merit in the present petition.

58. The writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid

observation. The interim protection granted to the petitioner on

19.12.2024 stands vacated.

59. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…