Nilu KumariversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2070 of 2024
     ======================================================
     Nilu Kumari W/o Ranjit Kumar R/o House No. 26, Ubhai, P.S.- Manpur,
     Gaya, Bihar- 824209


                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                    Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue
     Department, Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Collector, Gaya.
3.   The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gaya.
4.   The Circle Officer, Manpur.
5.   The Chief Conservator of Forest, Technology Bhawan 4th Floor of
     Vishveshwaraiya Building, Punaichak, Patna.
6.   The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Mohalla New Karimganj,
     P.S.- Civil Line Town, District- Gaya.
7.   The Additional Collector, District Registration Officer, Gaya.
8.   District Sub Registrar, Gaya.


                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr. Dhananjay Kumar

     For the Respondent/s   :        Mr. Mujtabul Haque, Government Pleader (12)

                                     Mr. Pranoy Kumar, AC to GP 12

     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
     CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 25-03-2026

              1. Petitioner is a proposed purchaser of a piece of land

      situated in Khata No. 76, Plot No. 14, Thana No. 320, village-

      Bhadeja, Anchal- Manpur, District- Gaya. She has filed the

      present writ application for quashing of order no. 109 dated

      22.07.2023 passed by the Collector -cum- District Registrar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                           2/12




         Gaya, whereby, he has refused to pass any order permitting

         sale / purchase / registration of the aforesaid land. The petitioner

         has further prayed for a direction to the respondents authority to

         register the land in question in favour of the petitioner.

                2. Background facts of the case is that the aforesaid land

         was recorded as “Bakast Malik” and was settled by the ex-

         landlord namely, Bisheshwar Lal Nakofa in favour of one Bibi

         Batulan, mother of one Md. Shakir in the year 1938-39.

                3. Upon abolition of Zamindari system, the ex-landlord

         submitted return Jamabandi in Compensation Case No. 105/13

         of 1953-54 and demand register was opened in the name of Bibi

         Batulan. During revisional survey operation the heirs of the

         ex-landlord got their names recorded in respect of entire land

         including the portion of settled land. A proceeding under Section

         106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act was initiated in Title Suit No. 431

         of 1980 at the instance of Bibi Batulan which was decided in

         favour of the claimant holding the revisional survey entry to be

         incorrect insofar as it related to the land settled with Babi

         Batulan. After demise of Bibi Batulan her son namely Md.

         Shakir came in possession of the land in question and was

         paying rent.

                4. In the year 2005 dispute arose when Forest Department
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                           3/12




         interfered with the land for plantation purposes leading to

         initiation of proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. claiming the

         land in question as a forest land on the basis of notification

         published in official gazette in the year 1948 as well as in the

         year 1952-53 declaring the land as a protected forest. Thereafter,

         Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005) was filed by Md. Shakir

         seeking declaration of title and possession over the disputed

         land.

                 5. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, Md. Shakir filed

         an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151

         of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order of injunction

         restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful

         possession over the suit land. The concerned court after due

         consideration allowed the said application vide order dated

         06.06.2006 restraining the defendants from entering upon the

         suit land and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff during the

         pendency of the suit.

                 6. Against the order of injunction, Miscellaneous Appeal

         No. 13 of 2006 / 14 of 2006 was filed by the defendants before

         the District Judge which was dismissed vide order dated

         22.02.2007. Aggrieved by the same the defendants filed CWJC

         No. 9610 of 2010 before this Court which was also dismissed
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                           4/12




         vide order dated 16.04.2014 and direction was given to the court

         below to take steps for expeditious disposal of the title suit

         preferably within a period of nine months from the date of

         receipt / production of the order.

                7. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, Md. Shakir

         executed a registered sale deed dated 24.03.2011 in favour of

         one Punam Sharma pursuant to which the suit land was mutated

         in her name and rent receipts were also issued in her favour.

         Subsequently, Punam Sharma executed another registered sale

         deed bearing Sale Deed No. 17369 dated 05.12.2016 in favour

         of one Sachidanand Singh and three others. Thereafter,

         Sachidanand Singh along with three others transferred the land

         in question to the present petitioner- Nilu Kumari. In pursuance

         thereof, on 16.06.2020 the petitioner along with the intended

         vendor presented the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Gaya

         for registration, however, the same was not entertained by the

         registering authority.

                8. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya by letter no.

         5050 dated 26.12.2020 requested the registering authorities not

         to register the sale documents pertaining to the subject land

         saying that the same constitutes forest land. The District

         Magistrate was also requested to cancel the demand opened in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                           5/12




         respect of the said land by certain local persons on the basis of

         fake documents / Hukumnama.

                9. Aggrieved by the said communication, Md. Shakir

         preferred CWJC No. 6933 of 2021 which came to be disposed

         of by order dated 30.01.2023 whereby Md. Shakir was directed

         to file a detailed representation before the District Magistrate

         cum- Registrar, Gaya. This Court also granted liberty to Md.

         Shakir to approach the trial court by filing an appropriate

         application in the event he intended to sell the land in question.

         The District Magistrate, Gaya on the representation of the

         petitioner passed the impugned order no. 109 dated 22.07.2023

         whereby he decided not to pass any order / decree till the

         disposal of the pending title suit and the restriction upon the

         registering authority shall be maintained with regard to the land

         in question.

                10. The aforesaid order dated 22.07.2023 bearing order

         no. 109 was earlier challenged by Md. Shakir in CWJC No.

         13507 of 2023 which was disposed of as not pressed on

         03.10.2023 however liberty was granted to Md. Shakir to pursue

         appropriate remedy before the learned Civil Court in the

         pending Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 / 307 of 2005. The petitioner

         instead of approaching Civil Court in pending Title Suit No. 29
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                           6/12




         of 2005 (307 of 2005) has filed the present writ application

         challenging the same impugned order which was the subject

         matter of CWJC No. 13507 of 2023.

                11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

         impugned order passed by the Collector -cum- District

         Registrar, Gaya suffers from a clear lack of jurisdiction and is

         ex facie unsustainable in law. On the basis of the said order the

         Sub Registrar, Gaya has refused to entertain any document

         relating to sale / purchase / transfer of the land in question.

         Such action is wholly illegal and contrary to law as the

         registering authority has no jurisdiction to refuse registration on

         such grounds, the same being beyond the scope of Section 71 of

         the Registration Act, 1908. At the time of registration the

         registering authority cannot adjudicate upon or examine the title

         of the property.

                12. It has further been argued that the suit land was

         “Bakast Malik” and not “Gair Mazarua Aam” land and the

         predecessor- in -interest of the petitioner Md. Shakir has been

         continuing in possession since 1938. The order dated 16.04.2024

         passed in CWJC No. 9610 of 2010 has never been challenged by

         the Forest Department thus attained finality. Despite such clear

         judicial pronouncement the Forest Department has continued to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                           7/12




         interfere through executive letters which is impermissible in law.

         The Circle Officer, Manpur by his report has stated that the land

         in question is not forest land however, the said report has been

         completely ignored by the Collector while passing the impugned

         order. This Court in CWJC No. 9610 of 2010 had directed the

         trial court for expeditious disposal of the pending title suit

         within a stipulated time yet the suit has remained pending for

         years without effective adjudication.

                13. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by

         Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 129 of 2021 (Kumar

         Gaurav vs The State of Bihar).

                14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued

         that the present writ application is wholly misconceived and not

         maintainable in law. The land in question is admittedly the

         subject matter of Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005)

         pending before the competent Civil Court at Gaya. The dispute

         is not isolated but is deeply embroiled in multiple litigations as

         apart from the aforesaid suit, three other title suits have also

         been filed concerning the same land. Such multiplicity of

         proceedings conclusively demonstrates that there is no clear,

         settled or undisputed title in favour of the petitioner or his

         predecessor- in- interest. Serious and complex questions relating
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                           8/12




         to title, nature of land and applicability of forest laws are

         involved inasmuch as rent receipts allegedly issued in favour of

         the mother of Md. Shakir were granted without any lawful

         mutation, without jurisdiction or without conducting any

         enquiry regarding the nature of land. The issuance of such rent

         receipts by Anchal Officials was in blatant violation of explicit

         Governmental instructions prohibiting issuance of rent receipts

         in respect of notified or demarcated forest land.

                15. Learned counsel further submits that entire claim of

         the petitioner is founded upon forged, fabricated and

         manufactured documents which do not confer any right, title or

         interest in the eye of law. The alleged settlement of 17 Acres of

         land    by     the    ex-landlord        is   categorically   denied.   The

         Hukumnama, Zamindari rent receipts and Cess Revaluation

         Return were fabricated documents created solely with the object

         of usurping the demarcated forest land belonging to the Forest

         Department. It has further been submitted that the petitioner and

         her predecessor -in- interest has never been in actual physical

         possession of the disputed land and under the garb of interim

         injunction proceedings under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. has

         attempted to encroach upon the notified forest land. All transfers

         executed without valid title or possession is void, non-est and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                           9/12




         illegal and none of the purported purchasers are in possession.

         These transactions were undertaken only to create artificial third

         party interests in forest land which disentitles the petitioner to

         any equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226.

                16. There is no violation of any injunction order nor any

         contempt of the directions of this Court. In CWJC No. 6933 of

         2021 liberty was specifically granted to the petitioner to

         approach the competent civil court for permission in case of any

         proposed alienation. In absence of any declaration of title or

         express permission of the Civil court, the respondents are

         justified in maintaining status quo.

                17. Lastly, it has been submitted that the claim of the

         Forest Department is founded upon statutory notifications issued

         under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 reinforced by

         the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and

         directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman

         Thirumulpad v. Union of India. Rent receipts or unregistered

         Hukumnama cannot override statutory forest notifications.

         Therefore, the writ application being devoid of merit deserves to

         be dismissed.

                18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

         through the materials on record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                          10/12




                19. The land in question is a disputed land inasmuch as

         on the one hand the petitioner is claiming through her

         predecessor- in- interest that the land was settled by the ex-

         landlord through Hukumnama and her predecessor -in-interest

         has been coming in peaceful possession over the land whereas

         on the other hand the case of the State authorities is that the land

         was notified as a protected forest by proper notification in the

         year 1948 & 1953. It is also the case of the respondent-State

         that the claim of the petitioner is founded upon forged,

         fabricated and manufactured documents which do not confer

         any right, title or interest in the eye of law. The Hukumnama,

         Zamindari rent receipts and Cess Revaluation Return were

         fabricated documents created solely with the object of usurping

         demarcated forest land belonging to the Forest Department.

                20. Admittedly the predecessor -in- interest of the

         petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005)

         which is pending before the competent authority and apart from

         the aforesaid suit three other title suits have also been filed

         concerning the disputed land. The multiplicity of proceedings

         pertaining to the subject land demonstrates that there is no clear,

         settled or undisputed title in favour of the petitioner or her

         predecessor -in- interest.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                          11/12




                21. Complex question of title vis-a-vis question of law

         pertaining to protected forest are involved in this case, as such,

         directing the registering authority to register the disputed land

         will further complicate the situation. This Court in earlier writ

         petitions filed by the petitioner’s predecessor- in- interest had

         given liberty to take permission from the competent Civil Court

         in the pending suit for sale of the disputed property. Interference

         by this Court during pendency of the suit under its extraordinary

         writ jurisdiction is not warranted in the facts of the present case.

                22. Considering the fact that complex question of title,

         claim of the petitioner and / or her predecessor-in-interest vis-a-

         vis the claim of the Forest Department is involved in this writ

         application, accordingly, this Court cannot direct the registering

         authority to register the land in question in favour of the

         petitioner. The judgment of Division Bench relied upon by the

         petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case.

                23. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of

         the considered opinion that the present writ application involves

         serious and disputed question of title vis- a- vis the nature of the

         land as protected forest, accordingly, no positive direction can

         be issued to the registering authority for registration of the

         subject land.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
                                                       12/12




                             24. The writ application is devoid of any merit and is

                      accordingly dismissed.



                                               (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                12-01-2026
Uploading Date          25-03-2026
Transmission Date       NA