Patna High Court
Md. Masik @ Md. Matik and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to approach the Collector for rehabilitation, without quashing the Additional Collector's order.
Summary
The petitioners, who are settlees of surplus land that was later de‑notified, challenged an order of the Additional Collector that cancelled the Jamabandi in their favour and sought protection from dispossession. They contended that despite a specific direction by the Collector dated 20‑02‑2001 that they should not be destabilised until an alternative rehabilitation arrangement was made, no such arrangement had been provided. The Court referred to a prior coordinate‑bench decision in Deven Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar, which directed the petitioners to approach the Collector for rehabilitation. The State accepted the earlier order and raised no objection. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioners to file an application with the Collector within four weeks for appropriate rehabilitation, rather than quashing the Additional Collector’s order.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the Additional Collector's order cancelling the Jamabandi on the petitioners' title?
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection from dispossession pending rehabilitation as per the Collector's earlier direction?
- Whether the petitioners should approach the Collector for rehabilitation in accordance with the coordinate‑bench precedent.
Subjects
- surplus land
- Jamabandi
- land rehabilitation
- collector's direction
- writ petition
- land ceiling
- alternative arrangement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1960 of 2017
======================================================
1. Md. Masik @ Md. Matik Son of Late Neyaz Ali,
2. Md. Kasim @ Kasim, Son of Late Neyaz Ali,
3. Md. Ifrad @ Ifrad, Son of Late Neyaz Ali, All are residents of Village-
Perveli, P.S.- Kadwa, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Collector, Katihar.
3. The Additional Collector land Ceiling, Katihar.
4. The Circle Officer, Kadwa, Anchal- Kadwa, District- Katihar.
5. Nayan Kumari Devi, wife of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Bhagat,
6. Krishna Mohan Prasad Bhagat @ Krishna Mohan Bhagat, Son of Late
Bindeshwari Prasad Bhagat,
7. Hira Lal Bhagat @ Hira Lal Prasad Bhagat, son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad
Bhagat,
8. Shankar Prasad Bhagat @ Sheo Shankar Prasad Bhagat, son of Late
Bindeshwari Prasad Bhagat, All are residents of village- Parveli, P.S.-
Kadwa, District- Katihar.
9. Mukti Prasad Bhagat, Son of Late Saryug Prasad Bhagat, resident of
Village- Perveli, P.S.- Kadwa, District- Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abdul Wadood, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr. Prasad, GP-14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
7 06-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(i) To quash the order vide Memo No.
393 dated 30.5.2016 issued by the Additional
Collector, Katihar by which he has accepted the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1960 of 2017(7) dt.06-01-2026
2/4
proposal and cancelled the Jamabandi which was
made in favour of the petitioners and other persons
which has been sent by the Circle Officer, Kadwa
to the petitioners vide Memo No.1545 dated
5.12.16 contained in Annexure-7 and 8 to the writ
petition.
(ii) To direct the respondents 1st set not
to dispossessed the petitioners from the land in
question over which they are in possession since
long.
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs may be
given which will be just, proper and equitable in
the opinion of this Hon'ble Court.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this
Court to an order dated 18.02.2025 passed by a Coordinate
Bench in CWJC No. 2216 of 2017 (Deven Rai & Ors vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors) and paragraph nos. 3 to 8 read as follows:
“3. The petitioners are the
settlees/allottees of the land which was declared
surplus but subsequently was de-notified, after
order of the coordinate Bench passed in CWJC No.
12726 of 2013 vide order dated 15.09.2014.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1960 of 2017(7) dt.06-01-2026
3/4
4. After order of the coordinate Bench,
the Collector. Katihar passed an order dated
20.02.2001 denotifying the surplus land which had
already been settled to the petitioners and other
persons, but while passing the order dated
20.02.2001, the Collector, Katihar has specifically
directed that till the alternative arrangement to
rehabilitate the petitioners (the red card holders),
they should not be destabilized.
5. Despite the specific direction of the
Collector, Katihar, no step has been taken for
rehabilitation of the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the only grievance of the petitioners is
that despite the specific order/direction of the
Collector, Katihar, the alternate arrangement for
their rehabilitation has not been made till date.
7. Considering the above-mentioned
facts and circumstances, the Collector, Katihar is
directed to take appropriate steps for rehabilitation
of the petitioners, as per his earlier observation
dated 20.02.2001 passed in Miscellaneous Ceiling
Patna High Court CWJC No.1960 of 2017(7) dt.06-01-2026
4/4
Case No. 615 of 1997 for which the petitioners
shall make application before the Collector within
a period of three weeks and the same shall be
decided within a period of six months from the date
of filing thereof in accordance of law.
8. With these observation/direction, the
writ petition stands disposed of.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they
may also be allowed to agitate the matter before the Collector in
line with the order passed in the case of Deven Rai (supra).
5. The State accepts that the aforesaid order has been
passed by a Coordinate Bench and has no objection.
6. In that background, the writ petition stands
disposed of in terms of Deven Rai (supra) case by directing the
petitioners to approach the Collector, Katihar in next four weeks
who shall be taking appropriate decision in the light of the facts
incorporated above alongwith the case of Deven Rai (supra).
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…