Patna High Court
Anand Kumar KediaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that, in the absence of proven title and pending adjudication of the ownership dispute, the writ petition cannot be entertained and is therefore disposed of.
Summary
The Kedia family, claiming ownership of Kedia Dharmshala adjacent to Areraj Temple, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to stop the State of Bihar’s Bridge Construction Corporation from constructing a foot‑over‑bridge over the Tilwa river that would connect the temple to the dharmshala. The petitioners alleged that the construction was proceeding without their written consent and that the land on which the bridge would be built is privately owned by them. The State argued that the project is part of a sanctioned tourism development and that the petitioners have not produced any document establishing title, especially as a separate appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 772 of 2023) before the Bihar State Religious Trust Board concerning the dharmshala’s ownership is pending. The Court observed that the Board, a material stakeholder, was not made a party‑respondent and that the pending appeal could determine the ownership issue, rendering the petitioners’ claim premature. Consequently, the Court ordered the petition to be disposed of, directing the parties to await the outcome of the pending appeal before seeking any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners have sufficient title and standing to obtain a mandamus restraining the State from constructing the bridge.
- Whether the pending appeal before the Bihar State Religious Trust Board bars the Court from entertaining the writ petition.
- Whether the State can proceed with the bridge construction without the petitioners’ written consent.
Subjects
- mandamus
- land ownership dispute
- pending appeal
- public works
- writ jurisdiction
- bridge construction
- religious trust
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20666 of 2025
======================================================
1. Anand Kumar Kedia Son of Late Binod Kumar Kedia, Resident of Village-
Madhuban Bazar, Post Office-Gulwara Madhuban, Police Station-
Madhuban, District-East Champaran.
2. Amit Kumar Kedia, Son of Late Ajay Kumar Kedia, Resident of Village-
Madhuban Bazar, Post Office-Gulwara Madhuban, Police Station-
Madhuban, District-East Champaran.
3. Anurag Kumar Kedia, Son of Late Ajay Kumar Kedia, Resident of Village-
Madhuban Bazar, Post Office-Gulwara Madhuban, Police Station-
Madhuban, District-East Champaran.
4. Anjani Kumar Kedia, Son of Late Ajay Kumar Kedia, Resident of Village-
Madhuban Bazar, Post Office-Gulwara Madhuban, Police Station-
Madhuban, District-East Champaran.
5. Most. Kaushalya Devi, Wife of Late Ajay Kumar Kedia, Resident of
Village-Madhuban Bazar, Post Office-Gulwara Madhuban, Police Station-
Madhuban, District-East Champaran.
6. Archana Sandhalia, Daughter of Late Ajay Kumar Kedia, Wife of Rakesh
Sandhaliy, at 9-1-128 Oxfor Enkham, 5th Floor, Flat No. 205, Sanjani Devi
Road, Sikandrabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Bihar State Bridge
Construction Corporation, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Environment Department, State of Bihar.
3. The Chief Engineer, Bridge Construction Corporation, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Bridge Construction, Bihar, Patna.
5. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 07-04-2026 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Vikas Kumar representing the Bridge
Construction Corporation, Bihar, Patna and Mr. Surendra Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.20666 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
2/5
Singh for the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(i) To issue rule in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the Respondents not
proceed with construction work of Pulia (Bridge)
connecting Areraj Temple to Kedia Dharmshala,
over Tilwa river comprising an area of 32' wide
and 105' long Bridge alongwith Pucca road falling
over landed premises of Kedia Dharmshala of the
petitioner.
(ii) To command the Respondent to
utilise existing road passing just by the side of
Kedia Dharamshala which exists since long
through which Pilgrims may visit, Areraj temple
smoothly without any hindrance and disturbance to
anyone.
(iii) To grant any other relief or reliefs
for which the petitioners are legally entitled.”
3. The petitioners claim to own Kedia Dharmshala at
Areraj closer to the Areraj Temple. The newspaper information
which is part of the writ petition shows that for the development
Patna High Court CWJC No.20666 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
3/5
and tourism/renovation of the Someshwar Nath Temple
(henceforth for short, ‘the Temple’) purposes, the State
Government sanctioned some amount. Amongst other, it
included the construction of a foot over-bridge to connect ‘the
Temple’ with the Dharamshala. The second press release which
has been annexed by the petitioners themselves show that their
stand earlier was that they have no objection to the said
construction.
4. However, in the present writ petition, the claim is
that without any written consent, the respondents are
constructing the foot over-bridge connecting ‘the Temple’ with
the Dharamshala which is their private premises.
5. The paragraph-11 of the petition, however shows
that the petitioners are fighting Misc. Appeal No. 772 of 2023
with the Bihar State Religious Trust Board (henceforth for short
‘the Board) and their own contention is that once the said appeal
comes to an end, they be entitled for the compensation.
6. The Bridge Construction Corporation has filed its
affidavit and Mr. Vikas Kumar has submitted that:
“(i) admittedly, the petitioners are
fighting the battle with ‘the Board’ but surprisingly,
it has not been made party-respondent in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20666 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
4/5
present case;
(ii) a Miscellaneous Appeal has already
been filed by the petitioners which is pending
adjudication and without waiting for the result,
they have jumped into the sea;
(iii) save and except the press release,
there is no document on record to show the bona
fide of the petitioners;
(iv) they have already directed the Circle
Officer, Areraj to look into the matter and ascertain
the ownership.
7. Having heard the parties, this Court is of the
opinion that the learned counsel for the Bridge Construction
Corporation, Bihar, Patna has rightly pointed out that ‘the
Board’ is a stake holder to the entire episode but it has not been
made party-respondent in the case. Further, admittedly, a case
between ‘the Board’ and the petitioners is pending and naturally,
the result of the said case will affect the merit of the claim put
forward by the petitioners inasmuch as presently the title of the
said Dharamshala is disputed. It is to be noted that the petitioner
has not brought a single document to show their claim over the
Dharamshala.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20666 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
5/5
8. So far as the State Government is concerned, they
have given a reasonable explanation that they are looking into
the matter and have asked the Circle Officer to ascertain the
status of the land/ownership.
9. In that background, it would be appropriate for the
parties to wait for the outcome of the Misc. Appeal No. 772 of
2023 and if at all, the order goes in favour of the petitioners, in
view of the statement that has been made on record by the Bihar
State Bridge Construction Department, they can lay claim for
the relief.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…