Patna High Court
Jayant Singh @ Jayant KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate title and possession, rendering the impugned order infirm.
Summary
The petitioners, brothers Jayant, Ajit and Chandan Kumar, claimed ownership of a 2 2/3 dismil plot in Masaurha based on a 1979 sale deed, while respondent Nand Kishore Sharma asserted a competing title. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (DCLR), acting under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, issued an order on 13‑01‑2026 declaring the respondent's right and directing the handover of possession, which the petitioners challenged by filing a writ petition for certiorari. The central issue was whether the DCLR had jurisdiction to determine title and possession, matters traditionally within the purview of civil courts. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, the court held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes and that the DCLR’s order was beyond its statutory powers. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the petitioners were directed to seek relief in a competent civil court, with the status quo to be maintained pending such proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, has jurisdiction to decide questions of title and possession under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act.
- Whether the order dated 13‑01‑2026 declaring the respondent's right over the disputed land is illegal, arbitrary, and beyond the authority of the revenue officer.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 126
Subjects
- land dispute
- jurisdiction
- revenue authority
- title
- possession
- certiorari
- Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act
- civil writ
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1997 of 2026
======================================================
1. Jayant Singh @ Jayant Kumar Son of Late Uday Kumar @ Uday Kumar
Singh @ Uday Singh, resident of Village and Post-Masaurha, P.S-Paliganj,
District-Patna.
2. Ajit Singh @ Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Uday Kumar @ Uday Kumar Singh,
resident of Village and Post-Masaurha, P.S-Paliganj, District-Patna.
3. Chandan Kumar, son of Late Uday Kumar @ Uday Kumar Singh, resident
of Village and Post-Masaurha, P.S-Paliganj, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land
Reforms, Government of Bihar.
2. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Paliganj (Patna).
3. The Circle Officer, Paliganj (Patna).
4. Nand Kishore Sharma, Son of Late Ram Naresh Singh, resident of Village
and Post-Masaurha, P.S-Paliganj, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Government Pleader (19)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“(1) For that the petitioners crave indulgence
of this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated
13.1.2026 (Annexure-1) passed by Deputy Collector, Land
Reforms, Paliganj, Patna (in short DCLR) in land Dispute
Resolution Case No.44/2025-26 as contained in Annexure-
P/1 whereby and whereunder learned D.C.L.R., Paliganj
had wrongly and illegally declared the right of respondent.
no.4 over the land in disputed Plot No.1286, Khata No.888,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1997 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/5
Mauza Masaurha, Thana No.305, Area 2.666 dismil and
Circle Officer, Paliganj and Thana-in-charge, Paliganj
were directed to ensure the handover of the possession of
the land in dispute.
(ii) For that to pass any order/orders,
diction/direction, command/commands directing the
respondents to not interference in the peaceful possession of
the petitioner over the land in dispute and its use.
(iii) For that the impugned order 13.1.2026
passed by respondent no.2 in Land Dispute Resolution Case
No.44/2025-26, Paliganj, Patna be declared as illegal,
arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
(iv) For directing the official respondent to not
take any coercive step in the light of impugned order
contained in Annexure-1 till final disposal the writ
application.
(v) For commanding the respondent to maintain
status quo over the land in dispute till final disposal of the
writ application..”
3. The brief facts of the Case are that the petitioners’
father purchased 2 2/3 dismil of land with house and homestead
situated at Mauza Masaurha, Thana No. 305 by registered Sale
Deed No. 673 of 1979 from Late Mankali Devi, the lawful
owner of the land. The original sale deed was lost, however, the
petitioners obtained a certified copy thereof. Though the survey
numbers are wrongly described, the boundaries, nature, and
identity of the land are specific, correct, and undisputed. The
Respondent No. 4 filed a Land Measurement Case No. 05/2019
for measurement of Plot No. 1287, Khata No. 829, Khesara No.
784, Mauza Masaurha, wherein Petitioner No. 3 was recorded as
a boundary holder/tenant. Subsequently, a proceeding under
Section 126 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, being
Case No. 676(M)/2024 arising out of Paliganj P.S. Non-FIR
Patna High Court CWJC No.1997 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
3/5
Case No. 205/24, was initiated against the petitioners. The said
proceeding was closed by the Executive Magistrate, Paliganj,
holding that the dispute relates to right and title of the land and
the same is not amenable to summary proceedings. Despite the
above finding, the Respondent No. 4 instituted Case No.
44/2025-26 under Section 4(1)(g) of the Bihar Land Disputes
Resolution Act before the DCLR, Paliganj. The petitioners
appeared and filed their written reply asserting lawful title and
possession. The DCLR, Paliganj, without jurisdiction, directed
the Anchal Adhikari and Officer-in-Charge, Paliganj P.S., to
hand over possession of the disputed land.
4. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners claim their title over a
plot appertaining to Khata No. 888, Khesra No. 1286, Thana
No. 305, Mauza – Masaurha, Area 2.666 decimal and the
impugned order dated 13.01.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, and
beyond the scope of the BLDR Act, as it effectively adjudicates
title and possession, which the authority lacks jurisdiction to
decide.
5. The record reveals that for the said disputed piece
of land, two sale deeds were executed, one in the name of the
petitioner and other in the name of one Nand Kishore Sharma,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1997 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
4/5
Son of Late Ram Naresh Singh (respondent no.4).
6. The Revenue authorities have no power or
jurisdiction to decide the complicated question of title and
possession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, reported in, (2008) 8 SCC 12, in para
no. 44 and 45, held as under:
44. The jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue
being limited, no title could have been conferred upon the
plaintiff. Title in or over a land will depend upon the
statutory provisions. A title does not remain in vacuum. It
has to be determined keeping in view the law operating in
the field viz. religious law or statutory law or customary
law, etc.
45. Revenue authorities of the State are
concerned with revenue. Mutation takes place only for
certain purposes. The statutory rules must be held to be
operating in a limited sense. The provisions of Rule 13 of
the Matmi Rules laying down a rule of primogeniture will
have no application in relation to the offices of
sajjadanashin and mutawalli, which are offices of different
nature. They are stricto sensu not hereditary in nature. It is
well settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a
document of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a
question of title.
7. Considering the facts of the case as well as, the law
laid down by the Apex Court in case of Faqruddin (Supra), I
don’t find any infirmity in the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by
the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Paliganj, Patna in Land
Dispute Resolution Case No. 44/2025-26, as the said order is
based on the finding that for the said disputed land in question,
two sale deeds were executed and in such circumstances, where
question of title is involved over the piece of land as described
Patna High Court CWJC No.1997 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
5/5
above, the Revenue Officers don’t have jurisdiction to decide.
The petitioners, if so advised, may avail remedy before the
competent civil court having jurisdiction.
8. This Court has not gone into the merits that who is
in possession of the land in question as on date.
9. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U
Checking your session…