Patna High Court

Birendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as premature, and the petitioners must seek relief through a civil declaratory suit.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of landholders from Dighaun village in Khagaria district, claimed that their lands, originally declared raiyati through Sarvasta settlements and recorded in Register‑II, were being jeopardized by a state‑wide land survey. They alleged that the survey officials were demanding pre‑1946 sale deeds, which were unavailable, and that the ongoing survey would cause irreparable loss to their title and possession. The State argued that the writ petition was premature under the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011 and that any grievance should be addressed in the appropriate civil forum. The Court noted that a registered sale deed alone does not confer title if the seller lacked clear ownership, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahnoor Fatima Imran v. Visweswara Infrastructure (2025). Relying on earlier judgments, the Court held that the petitioners’ possession and statutory vesting could not be disturbed by the survey and that the proper remedy was a declaratory suit in a civil court. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, directing the petitioners to pursue relief through the civil jurisdiction.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners’ lands can be declared raiyati and protected from the ongoing survey.
Whether the ongoing survey can be halted pending rectification of revenue records.
Whether the petitioners possess a valid title based on sale deeds and Sarvasta settlement.
Whether the petition is premature under the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011.
Whether the appropriate remedy is a civil suit rather than a writ under Article 226.

Legislation cited

Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011
Registration Act, 1908 — s. 23, 24, 34
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s. 53-A

Subjects

raiayati land
land survey
settlement
title verification
Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act
Transfer of Property Act
registration
writ jurisdiction
civil remedy

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20084 of 2025
======================================================
1. Birendra Kumar Son of Sri Chotelal Singh,
2. Ptamber Singh, S/o Maheshwar Singh,
3. Sikandar Yadav, S/o Late Gainu Yadav,
4. Shailendra Prasad Singh, S/o Nirdhan Singh,
5. Sudhir Prasad Singh, S/o Late Mishri Prasad Singh,
6. Uday Kumar Singh @ Uday Kumar, S/o Upendra Singh,
7. Brahmdeo Singh, S/o Late Shanti Singh,
8. Ghanshyam Singh, S/o Late Arjun Singh,
9. Ram Bilash Singh, S/o Brajlal Singh,
All resident of Village- Dighaun, Ward No. 7, P.S.- Beldaur, District-
Khagaria.. .. ... Petitioner/s

Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Land Records and Measurement, Directorate Gulzarbagh,
Patna.
4. The District Magistrate-Cum-District Collector Khagaria, District- Khagaria,
Bihar.
5. The District Settlement Officer, Khagaria, District- Khagaria, Bihar.
6. The Additional Collector Revenue, Khagaria, District- Khagaria, Bihar.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer Khagaria Sadar, District- Khagaria, Bihar.
8. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and Revenue Khagaria Sadar, District-
Khagaria, Bihar.
9. The Circle Officer Khagaria Sadar, District- Khagaria, Bihar.
10. The Circle Officer, Beldaur, Anchal- Beldaur, District- Khagaria, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Venkatesh Kirti, Advocate, JC to GA 2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-01-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present

writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
Patna High Court CWJC No.20084 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
2/10

reproduced hereinafter:-

“(i) The gairmajarua Khas, Baksat and
Sarvasta lands of petitioners may be declared
raiyatee land in on going survey on the basis of sale
deed land revenue receipts as well as Register -II.
(ii) Database may be rectified by
arranging camps at mauza level for the smooth and
fair functioning of on going survey.
(iii) Claims of petitioners may be heard
and redressed of all mauza i.e. (a) Dighaun (b)
Gandharsan (c) Beldaur, (d) Sanahauli (e)
Khagaria sadar (f) Sathma.
(iv) Survey may be stopped up to the
rectifications of the database and redressal of the
grievances and claims of petitioner.
(v) And for any other relief/reliefs for
which petitioner may found fit and proper either in
the eye of law or among facts of the case.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that Khagaria

District, being interspersed with rivers, canals and ditches in

abundance, was segregated during the British regime and

designated as Pargana Farakiya, within which Beldaur Anchal is

situated. The said region originally lay within the course of

River Koshi and continues to be affected by annual floods of the

said river resulting into deluvium and alluvium. After

completion of the survey operations, Sarvasta was carried out by

the then Zamindars during the years 1943–44 and settlements

were effected prior to 01.01.1946. On the basis of such Sarvasta

and settlement, raiyati lands were lawfully settled, transfered by

way of registered sale deeds were recognized, and raiyats were

granted revenue receipts, pursuant to which the State of Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.20084 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
3/10

continued to realise land revenue up to the year 2017–18. It is

further the case of the petitioners that consequent upon the

survey conducted in the years 1887–1888, the then Zamindars

conferred title and ownership rights upon the raiyats, and the

settlement papers including Sarvasta Pramangi and other

connected documents were duly accepted by the then

Government, on the basis whereof absolute title and ownership

over the lands stood vested in the raiyats. The petitioners have

claimed to be lawful raiyats and absolute title holders of the

subject lands situated at Mauza Dighaun, Thana No. 144, Tauzi

No. 525 and other mauzas in Khagaria District. The lands were

duly purchased by the petitioners and their family members

through valid transactions and were settled either in favour of

the petitioners or their predecessors. The lands were declared

Sarvasta by the erstwhile Zamindars and duly recorded in

issued by the respondents up to the year 2017–18. The

petitioners and their family members are in peaceful, continuous

possession of the subject lands for decades and are Kartas of

their respective Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), having

inherited the lands from their forefathers.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners
Patna High Court CWJC No.20084 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
4/10

submitted that a recent survey operation is presently underway

throughout the State of Bihar, including Khagaria District.

During the course of the said survey, local survey and settlement

officials have adopted unfair practices and illegal methods,

causing serious prejudice not only to the petitioners but also to

other genuine raiyats. The petitioners repeatedly approached the

respondent authorities, both orally and through written

representations, seeking protection of their lawful rights.

Despite several representations submitted to the Director, Land

Records and Measurement, Gulzarbagh, Patna, and other

revenue authorities, no action was taken and complete silence

was maintained. During the survey proceedings, the petitioners

were advised by local revenue officials to produce sale deeds

executed prior to 01.01.1946 by the original Zamindars.

However, the petitioners were unable to obtain such documents

due to non-availability of Register-II and Khatiyan records, as

officially confirmed by the In-charge, District Record Room,

who allegedly informed that the records were either unavailable

or found in a deteriorated condition and certified copies could

not be issued. The petitioners brought this fact to the notice of

the revenue officials and relied upon the Extra-Ordinary Gazette

of the State of Bihar dated 14.11.2014, requesting the authorities
Patna High Court CWJC No.20084 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
5/10

to follow the rules and guidelines framed by the State

Government. However, the respondents failed to consider the

same. Being left remediless, the petitioners submitted detailed

representations before the District Collector, Khagaria, and the

Additional Collector (Revenue), Khagaria, highlighting their

genuine and bona fide grievances, but the same yielded no

result.

5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the ongoing

survey, if allowed to continue in the present arbitrary manner,

will cause irreparable loss and serious injury to the petitioners’

title, possession, and future rights over the subject lands. The

respondents have acted in violation of the guidelines and

conditions prescribed by the State of Bihar and published in the

Extra-Ordinary Gazette dated 14.11.2014, despite the petitioners

being genuine raiyats with established title and possession.

Hence, the petitioners seek protection of their raiyati rights and

pray that the subject lands under the concerned khatas be treated

as raiyati lands on the basis of Sarvasta, and that the petitioners’

title and possession be declared absolute.

6. The learned counsel for the State informs that the

present writ petition is pre-mature as the survey is still

continuing and if the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner
Patna High Court CWJC No.20084 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
6/10

by the action of any of the authority in course of the ongoing

survey, as per the provision of Bihar Special Survey and

Settlement Act, 2011.

7. It is gainful to take note of the fact that a sale deed

cannot be a document of title nor the “Record of Rights” is a

document of title. At the same time preventing a person from

getting the land mutated in ‘Records of Right’ at the strength of

valid transfer / sale deed would be contrary to provisions of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

8. A registered sale deed doesn't automatically grant

ownership if the seller lacked clear title, as legal title requires

a valid root of title, clear chain of ownership, and often, proven

possession, meaning a sale deed from someone without title

transfers nothing, regardless of registration as held by Apex

Court in case of Mahnoor Fatima Imran v. Visweswara

Infrastructure (P) Ltd., reported in, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

1062, wherein in para no. 16, 22 and 28, the apex court has held

as under:

16. The observation that registration of a document
gives notice to the world that such a document has
been executed is not to confer an unimpeachable
validity on all such registered documents. Even the
respondents/writ petitioners accept that the
presumption coming forth from a registered deed of
conveyance is rebuttable. While reserving the right
of persons who had obtained sale
agreement/general power of attorney/will executed,
to complete confirmation of title on them by getting
Patna High Court CWJC No.20084 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
7/10

registered deeds of conveyance, the conclusion of
the cited decision, which acts as a binding
precedent, is available in para 24, which we extract
hereunder:—
“24. We therefore reiterate that
immovable property can be legally and
lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a
registered deed of conveyance. Transactions
of the nature of “GPA sales” or
“SA/GPA/will transfers” do not convey title
and do not amount to transfer, nor can they
be recognised or valid mode of transfer of
immovable property. The courts will not treat
such transactions as completed or concluded
transfers or as conveyances as they neither
convey title nor create any interest in an
immovable property. They cannot be
recognised as deeds of title, except to the
limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act.
Such transactions cannot be relied upon or
made the basis for mutations in municipal or
revenue records. What is stated above will
apply not only to deeds of conveyance in
regard to freehold property but also to
transfer of leasehold property. A lease can
be validly transferred only under a
registered assignment of lease. It is time that
an end is put to the pernicious practice of
SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA
sales.”
22. Further, an instrument of conveyance is
compulsorily registrable as required under the
Registration Act. Section 23 prescribes four-months’
time for presenting a document for registration from
the date of its execution. Section 24 provides that if
there are several persons executing a document at
different times, such document may be presented for
registration or re-registration within four months
from the date of such execution. In the instant case,
all the executants, parties to the agreement, have
signed on the day shown in the agreement. The
proviso to Section 34 also enables the Registrar to
condone the delay, if the document is presented
within a further period of four months, on payment
of a fine. The validation of the sale agreement,
which clearly is shown to be not one executed by the
declarants, by reason of it materially differing from
that produced as Annexure P-33, on the strength of
which a suit for specific performance was filed by
the vendor, the Bhavana Society, which is also the
intended purchaser in the sale agreement of 1982, it
Patna High Court CWJC No.20084 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
8/10

smacks of fraud. The agreement of 1982, the
original one and the revalidated one, cannot result
in a valid title, merely for reason that the subsequent
instrument had been registered. As we noticed at the
outset, the learned Single Judge did not decide the
title but only raised valid suspicion insofar as the
title of the vendor in the deed of conveyance. Even
according to the writ petitioners, their claim stems
from a sale agreement, which is not a proper deed of
conveyance, especially since it is not a registered
document.
28. The cloud on title and the doubts raised on
possession by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed
by us are merely prima facie observations to deny
discretion to invoke the extra ordinary power under
Article 226. So are the misgivings expressed on the
claim of repossession by the original declarants
through their GPA and the skepticism regarding
their very right to obtain repossession of property
already vested in the State, under a Statute, which
Statute also does not provide for any review of the
notification issued under the Act; the notification
having merely affirmed the statutory vesting. The
reservation in favour of the State also arises only
from our anxiety to preserve the property, without
creation of any third-party interest, to avoid any
hindrance of the State's power to invoke the
provisions under the Land Reforms Act, if done
within a reasonable period, which would also be
subject to legitimate legal scrutiny. It goes without
saying; then, the parties would be entitled to agitate
their respective causes, in the appropriate civil
forum or if statutorily prohibited, avail of the
remedies made available under the statute which
proceedings will not be governed by the findings in
our judgment, we having only prima facie declined
invocation of the discretionary, extraordinary
jurisdiction.

9. The petitioners have made specific statement that

the land, which they claim, is affected by flood caused by river

Koshi every year and in that background, the petitioners have

prayed for stopping the ongoing survey.

10. In this regard, this Court in CWJC No. 15963 of

2023 (Shyam Chandra Sharma vs. The State of Bihar) while
Patna High Court CWJC No.20084 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
9/10

dealing with the provision of Registration Act, 1908, as well as

the ownership of topo land, considering the several resolution of

the State Government in respect of ongoing survey of the topo

land in the State of Bihar, particularly, in the case relating to

Chapra Municipality observed that a title of a person does not

get affected in any way by change of his name in records of

municipality. Title flows from transfer as devolution of holding

which can only be adjudicated in a properly framed title suit.

However, a person who is in possession of a holding is liable to

pay holding tax. In the present case also taking into

consideration that the petitioners have claimed their

possessionary right over the land on the basis of settlement,

which was done much before 01.01.1946 and in accordance

with the terms and conditions stipulated in Resolution No.925

dated 11.11.2014 of the State Government. The petitioners have

been able to establish their actual and physical possession and

statutory vesting of property. The very right to obtain possession

of the property is already vested with the petitioners and the

same cannot be taken away in garb of ongoing survey.

11. In view of specific statement contained in Sub-

paragraph No.xiii of Paragraph No.2 read with the information

contained in Annexure 3 provided by the Incharge Record
Patna High Court CWJC No.20084 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
10/10

Room, Khagaria, the petitioners, if so desire, may seek records,

which are not available with them from the District Magistrate-

cum-Collector, Khagaria.

12. The State in case disputes the title of the

petitioners, the petitioners, if so desire, may also avail remedy

before the competent civil court for claiming their right and

possession over the land by filing a declaratory suit in case the

State finds that they are dispossessesd from the government

land, however, no such action has been taken by the State

Government either claiming the land to be government’s

recorded land or for the purpose of survey only such topo land

has been considered to be government land and such stand of

the State has been set aside in the case of Shyam Chandra

(supra) and affirmed the same in LPA No.562 of 2024 and also

affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLA No.4556 of

2025.

13. With the above observation/direction, the present

writ petition stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.01.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…