Patna High Court
Dinesh PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that when an appeal against the same order is pending before the appropriate administrative authority, the writ petition must be dismissed and the petitioner should pursue the appeal.
Summary
Dinesh Pandit filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking mandamus against several state officials and private respondents to remove an alleged encroachment on his personal land and to restore his possession. He relied on an order dated 04‑07‑2025 that restored the jamabandi in his favour, but claimed that respondents 7 and 8 continued to occupy the land. The State counsel informed the court that the petitioner had already filed an appeal (Appeal No. 5469 of 2026) before the Collector challenging the same order. The court held that the pending appeal is the appropriate remedy and that the writ petition cannot be entertained concurrently. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the matter was left to be resolved through the appeal process.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing removal of encroachment and restoration of possession when an appeal against the same order is pending before the Collector.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the existence of an administrative remedy.
Subjects
- mandamus
- encroachment
- land dispute
- writ petition
- administrative appeal
- possession
- land reforms
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1927 of 2026
======================================================
Dinesh Pandit S/o Late Ram Babu Pandit R/o Mohalla- Chhoti Pahari, House
No.- 311/2, Near Coconut Shop, P.O.- Bari Pahari, P.S.- Agamkuan, District-
Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue
Department, Govt. of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna, District- Patna.
3. Additional District Magistrate, Patna, District- Patna.
4. Sub- Divisional Officer (SDO), Patna City, District- Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Block- Patna City, District- Patna.
6. Station House Officer, (SHO), P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna.
7. Ram Vilash Pandit, S/o Late Soharai Pandit Resident of Chhoti Pahari, P.O.-
Bari Pahari, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna, Bihar.
8. Bharat Pandit, S/o Late Soharai Pandit Resident of Chhoti Pahari, P.O.- Bari
Pahari, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Pratap, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (4)
For the Resp. Nos. 7 & 8: Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Choubey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 15-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(I) For issuance of appropriate order/s,
direction/s including a writ preferably in the nature
of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the
Respondent Authorities particularly the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1927 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
2/4
Respondent no.4 & 5 to remove encroachment, in
light of the order passed by the office of the
Respondent No.-2 vide Letter No. 14036 dated
21.09.2025 (Annexure P/9), from the personal land
of the petitioner bearing Revenue Thana No.- 14,
Khata No.- 334, Khesra No.- 14, Area-5 decimal,
situated at Mauza-Pahari, District Patna, which
has been illegally encroached upon by the private
respondent no. 7 & 8.
(II) For issuance of appropriate order/s,
direction/s including a writ preferably in the nature
of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the
Respondent Authorities particularly the
Respondent no.-5 to restore the possession of the
aforesaid personal immovable property of the
petitioner, in light of the order 04.07.2025 passed
by the Respondent No.-3 in Case No Jamabandi
Case No.-138/2015-16 (Annexure P/7) whereby
and whereunder the said Respondent has restored
the jamabandi no 6170 in favour of the petitioner.
The property in question is acquired by the
petitioner by way of an agreement dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.1927 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
3/4
21.05.1990 (Annexure P/1) executed by one of his
relative.
(III) For issuance of a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.-4 & 5 to get the aforesaid land
evicted from the unlawful possession of Respondent
no.- 7 & 8 and restrain them from dispossessing
the petitioner from his self-acquired property.
(IV) For issuance of a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.-5 to restore the possession of the
property in question to the petitioner.
(V) For any other appropriate
relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found
entitled in the facts and circumstances of this
case.”
3. At the outset, learned State counsel has informed
this Court that against the order passed by the Additional
Collector, Patna dated 4.07.2025 in JBCA 138/2015-16 (Dinesh
Pandit vs. Ram Vilash Pandit & Ors.), as per his instruction, the
petitioner has approached before the Collector, Patna in Appeal
Case No. 5469 of 2026.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1927 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
4/4
4. In that background, when the appeal has already
been preferred, it would be appropriate that the petitioner pursue
the matter and the respondents are duty bound to ensure that it
will be taken to its logical conclusion after hearing all the
necessary parties.
5. The writ petitioner stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…