Patna High Court
Shrikant KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Deputy Collector Land Reforms acted within its jurisdiction under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009, and the order is valid.
Summary
Shrikant Kumar claimed ownership of land based on a 1973 exchange deed, but a partition suit (Title Suit No. 483 of 1989) had been filed by the original landholder, resulting in Jamabandi No. 608 being in the original holder’s name. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) issued an order on 24‑12‑2025 directing demarcation of the land in favour of the original holder. The petitioner challenged the DCLR’s jurisdiction under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009, arguing that the Act only covers boundary disputes and not title matters. The State contended that the petitioner was not a party to the partition suit and that the DCLR acted within its authority. Relying on earlier judgments, the Court examined the scope of the Act and held that the DCLR’s order was within jurisdiction, dismissing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has jurisdiction to adjudicate a title dispute and order demarcation under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009.
- Whether the order dated 24‑12‑2025 is void for lack of jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim can be entertained through a writ of certiorari.
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- land dispute
- title dispute
- demarcation
- Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act
- writ petition
- certiorari
- partition suit
- revenue law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2043 of 2026
======================================================
Shrikant Kumar s/o Sharifan Yadav, Reesident of Village- Singhara, Ward No.
1,P.S- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna, PIN Code- 801102.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms,
Patna Bihar.
2. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Additional Collector, Patna.
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Paliganj, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna.
6. Kumar Devendra Narayan, s/o Awadh Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-
Singhara, P.S- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna, PIN Code-801102.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Dimpal Kumari, AC to GP 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-02-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“a. For the issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction for quashing and setting aside
the impugned order dated 24.12.2025, passed by the
Learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR),
Paliganj, Patna, in Land Dispute Case No.35/2025-
26 whereby and whereunder the DCLR, Paliganj
has erroneously allowed the claim of the
Applicant/Respondent 2nd Set, declaring his rights
over the subject land and directing the Circle
Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
2/9
Officer, Dulhin Bazar, Patna, to effectuate
measurement and demarcation of the land in
question bearing Khata No.110, Khesra No.951
(Area 25 decimals), Khata No.110, Khesra No.952
(Area 44 decimals), Khata No.110, Khesra No.953
(Area 2 decimals) and Khata No.112, Khesra
No.950 (Area 72 decimals) upon realization of the
requisite fee.
b. For the issuance of an appropriate
writ, order, or direction, staying the operation and
implementation of the impugned order dated
24.12.2025, passed by the Respondent No.4
(Learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms,
Paliganj, Patna) in Land Dispute Case No.35/2025-
26, during the pendency of the present writ
application.
c. For commanding the respondents to
maintain status quo over the land in question till
final disposal of the writ petition.
d. For any other writ/writs for which
petitioner may deem entiled to.”
3. The petitioner is claiming title over a piece of land,
over which he allegedly came into possession on the basis of an
Exchange Deed dated 03.03.1973, as stated in paragraphs 4 and
9 of the writ petition respectively. However, the petitioner does
not dispute that Title Suit No. 483 of 1989, relating to partition
between the petitioner and the original landholder, was
instituted, nor does he deny that Jamabandi No. 608 was created
in the name of the ancestor of private respondent no. 6. The
petitioner further contends that in the said title partition suit, the
issue relating to the exchange of land between the parties in the
year 1973 was not adjudicated.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
3/9
4. In view of the above, the petitioner has questioned
the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR)
in passing the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 as the same has
been passed without jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be
interfered with.
5. The petitioner, in support of his claim, has relied
upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed in CWJC No. 17154 of
2022 (Akhilesh Singh v. The State of Bihar), as well as, the
judgment dated 03.04.2023 passed in CWJC No. 6259 of 2020
(Ram Bachan Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and
contended that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) has
no jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 4(1)(h) of the
Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Act, 2009”), which confers jurisdiction upon the
competent authority only in matters relating to “boundary”
disputes. It is further contended that Rule 2(d) of the Act, 2009
defines the term “land” and that the Act does not contemplate
adjudication of disputes involving title between two private
individuals.
6. For proper appreciation of the controversy
involved, it would be apposite to reproduce the provisions
Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
4/9
contained in Section 4 of the Act, 2009, which reads as follows:
“ 4. Jurisdiction and authority to resolve
disputes.-(1) The competent authority shall have
jurisdiction and authority to hear and adjudicate,
on an application or complaint or on any
application referred to by a prescribed authority or
officer, any issue arising out of following types of
disputes:-
(a) Unauthorised and unlawful
dispossession of any settlee or allottee from any
land or part thereof, settled with or allotted to him
under any Act contained in Schedule-1 to this Act
by issuance of any settlement document/parcha by
a competent authority;
(b) Restoration of possession of settled /
allotted land in favour of legally entitled settlee/
allottee or his successors/heirs, upon adjudication
of unauthorized and unlawful dispossession;
(c) Threatened dispossession of a legally
entitled settlee/ allottee;
(d) Any of the matters enumerated in (a),
(b) and (c) above appertaining to raiyati land.
(e) Partition of land holding;
(f) Correction of entry made in the record
of rights including map/survey map.
(g) Declaration of the right of a person;
(h) Boundary disputes;
(i)Construction of unauthorized
structure; and
(j) Lis pendens transfer .
(2) The competent authority shall not
have jurisdiction to review or reopen any finally
concluded and adjudicated proceeding under any
of the Acts contained in Schedule-1. The competent
authority shall exercise his authority for resolving
the dispute brought before him on the basis of any
final order passed by any of the authorities
empowered to do so in the Acts contained in
Schedule-1 of this Act.
(3) The competent authority shall not
have jurisdiction to adjudicate any fresh rights of
allottee / settlee or a raiyat which is not yet
determined and is required to be determined in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
5/9
accordance with provisions contained in any of the
Acts contained in Schedule-1:
Provided that where rights of
allottee / settlee or raiyat are already
determined under any of the Acts
contained in Schedule-1, the competent
authority shall have jurisdiction to
entertain cases appertaining to matters
enumerated in sub-section (1).
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-section (2) and (3) hereinabove, if no
provision is made in any of the Acts contained in
Schedule-1 for determination of rights of allottee /
settlee or raiyat and claimed right is yet to be
determined, it shall be open to the competent
authority to finally determine such right.
(5) The competent authority, wherever it
appears to him that the case instituted before him
involves complex question of adjudication of title,
he shall close the proceeding and leave it open to
parties to seek remedies before the competent Civil
Court.”
6. Rule 2(d) of the Act, 2009 reads as follows : -
2(d)-“Land” connotes Government land,
raiyati land, with with structure, if any.”
7. While considering the similar question raised
before this Court, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Basudev Saw & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,
vide judgment dated 29.02.2023 passed in CWJC No.9536 of
2022 had observed inter alia as follows : -
“From the materials on record, what is not
in dispute is that the application filed by the
petitioners as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ
application before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas was
under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
6/9
2009.
…………………………………………...
Admittedly, the case of the respondent no.5
not being that the land in question was a
Government land, which was settled in his favour
under any of the Acts, contained in Schedule-1 to
the Act, there can be no dispute with respect to the
fact that the respondent no.5 is neither an allottee
nor a settlee as defined under the Act.
The next question which would arise is as
to whether the authority under the Act would have
jurisdiction to decide the disputes as mentioned in
sections 4(1)(e) to 4(1)(j) with respect to persons
who are not settlee/allottee as in the case of this
petitioner. It is true that sections 4(1)(a), (b) and (c)
specifically mentions the term ‘settlee/allottee’ while
the same is not used in sections 4(1)(e) to 4(1)(j). At
this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
preamble of the Act for purpose of ascertaining the
intent for which the legislature enacted the Act.
The preamble of the Act is reproduced
herein below for ready reference:
“Preamble:- Whereas, in the State of
Bihar, disputes relating to record of rights,
boundaries, entries in revenue records, unlawful
occupation of raiyati land and forcible dispossession
of allottees and settlees of public land, generate
problems and cause unnecessary harassment
tobonafide allotees/settlees, raiyats or occupants;
WHEREAS, such disputes with respect to
raiyati land or public land allotted in favour of
different classes of allottees are unnecessarily
occupying major space of Civil Courts and Hon’ble
High Court and which should otherwise have been
resolved by the Revenue Authorities, who may be
better equipped to deal with such disputes having
regard to their continued presence in the field
offices and their expertise in Revenue
Administration,
WHEREAS, in larger public interest it is
deemed necessary to provide for effective and speedy
mechanism to resolve such disputes which give rise
to major turbulence if not addressed immediately
and effectively;
Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
7/9
AND, WHEREAS, it has been found in
analysis of data relating to nature of disputes that
they mostly appertain to matters connected with the
record of rights, partition of jamabandi, forcible
dispossession of allottees / raiyats, boundary
disputes etc. and in this context, the administration
of the following Acts is involved:
(1) The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950,
(2) The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885,
(3) The Bihar Privileged Persons
Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947,
(4) The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954,
(5) The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961,
(6) The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings
and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956,
AND, Whereas, different forums and
procedures have been provided for the resolution of
disputes under the above referred Acts and it is
considered expedient to provide a uniform and
common forum, procedure and mechanism which
would achieve the objective of effective, efficacious
and speedy resolution of disputes.”
From reading of the preamble and the Act
as a whole, there remains no doubt that the purpose
of the legislature in enacting the Act was effective
and speedy mechanism to resolve disputes with
respect to matters connected with record of rights,
partition of jamabandi, forcible dispossession of
allottees/raiyats, boundary disputes etc. and in this
context, the Acts namely The Bihar Land Reforms
Act, 1950, The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, The Bihar
Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947,
The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, The Bihar
Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition
of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and The Bihar
Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of
Fragmentation Act, 1956 were involved.
Thus, in the opinion of the Court, what
appears from the reading of the Act as a whole
along with its preamble as quoted herein above and
specifically section 3 of the Act, the purpose of the
Act is on resolution of any dispute arising out of or
under any of the six Acts mentioned in Schedule-1.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
8/9
So far as the instant case is concerned, the
case of the respondent no.5, on whose application
the proceedings under the Bihar Land Disputes
Resolution Act, 2009 commenced in the Court of the
learned D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas, was neither an
allottee nor a settlee nor was his case that the land
in question which is the subject matter of the dispute
came in his possession under any of the six Acts
mentioned in Schedule-1 to the Bihar Land Disputes
Resolution Act, 2009.
Thus, in view of the facts stated herein
above, the application filed by the respondent no.5
before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas under the Bihar
Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 was not
maintainable and as a result the order dated
20.5.2022 passed in Case no.17/2021-22 by the
D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas being without jurisdiction,
is not sustainable and is hereby quashed.”
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted
that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that Title Suit No.
483 of 1989 pertained to partition. It was further contended that
respondent no. 6 is a descendant of one of the original
landholders, in whose name Jamabandi No. 608 was opened
pursuant to the decree passed in Title Suit No. 483 of 1989.
Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed
by the DCLR.
9.Heard the parties.
10. In view of the findings recorded in the judgment
dated 29.03.2023 passed in CWJC No.9536 of 2022 (Basudev
Saw & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), I find that, in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
9/9
present case, the petitioner is claiming his right over the land in
question on the basis of an Exchange Deed of the year 1973.
Subsequent thereto, the original landholder filed Title Partition
Suit No. 483 of 1989 and the DCLR, by the impugned order
dated 24.12.2025, directed the Circle Officer concerned to
demarcate the land in question in favour of the original
landholder.
11. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner
was neither made a party to the said partition suit nor did he
take steps to get himself impleaded, despite claiming possession
and interest in the land and the Jamabandi No. 608 remained in
the name of the original landholder.
12. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find
that the DCLR has exceeded or acted beyond his jurisdiction in
passing the order for demarcation of the land between the
parties.
13. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present writ
petition, which stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.02.2026
Transmission Date NA.
Checking your session…