Patna High Court
Ishwar Lal PrasadversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable; the petitioner must seek relief through a competent civil court.
Summary
The petitioner, Ishwar Lal Prasad, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of several orders of the Bihar Land Tribunal, the Commissioner, and other officials, and directed demarcation of disputed land in Village Bhelahi. He alleged that after a criminal proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was decided in favour of a private respondent, the subsequent civil relief of land demarcation was denied by the Tribunal. The State argued that the petitioner should have approached a competent civil court rather than invoking writ jurisdiction. The High Court agreed, holding that the writ petition is not maintainable where a civil remedy is available, and directed the petitioner to pursue the matter in a civil court. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without any order against the respondents.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for a land demarcation dispute when a civil remedy is available.
- Whether the orders of the Bihar Land Tribunal and other officials can be quashed by a writ.
- Whether the petitioner is required to approach a civil court for adjudication of the land dispute.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 144
Subjects
- land demarcation
- writ jurisdiction
- civil remedy
- Bihar Land Tribunal
- Section 144 CrPC
- petition disposed
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2078 of 2017
======================================================
Ishwar Lal Prasad Son of Late Gopal Sah, Resident of Village-Bhelahi,
Anchal-Raxaul, Police Station-Palanwa, District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. The Member, Administrative, the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna
3. THe Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran at Motihari.
5. The Deputy Collector Land Land Reforms, Razaul, District-East
Champaran.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raxaul, District-East Champaran.
7. The Circle Officer, Razaul, District-East Champaran.
8. Panna Lal Patel,
9. Mohan Bagan, Both Son's of late Chulhai Boss.
10. Binay Kumar patel,
11. Ajay Kumar Patel,
12. Kunal Patel,
13. Sanyal Kumar Patel,
14. Rup Lal Patel, 10 to 14 Son's of Nohan Bagan, 8 to 14 are Resident of
Village-Bhelahi, Anchal-Razaul, Police Station-Palanwa, District-East
Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan- SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 06-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, learned counsel
for the petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2078 of 2017(2) dt.06-01-2026
2/4
certiorari or any other appropriate writ or writs for
quashing the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by Shri
K.P. Ramaiah, the Member Administrative, the Bihar
Land Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No.246 of 2015
vide which he has dismissed the B.L.T. Case No. 246
of 2015 filed by the petitioner against the order dated
06.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur in B.L.D.R. Appeal Case No.
156 of 2011 and further for quashing the order dated
06.01.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner,
Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in B.L.D.R. Appeal
Case No.156 of 2011, who affirmed the order dated
11.07.2011 passed by the learned Deputy Collector,
Land Reforms, Raxaul, District-East Champaran in
B.L.D.R. Case No.27 of 2011-12 and also for
quashing the order 11.07.2011 passed by the learned
Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Raxaul, District-
East Champaran in B.L.D.R. Case No.27 of 2011-12
vide which he has dismissed the petition filed by the
petitioner vide which a prayer for demarcation of the
land appertaining to Khata No.08, Khesra No.2579
situated in village Bhelahi as well as for restraining
the opposite parties (respondent no.8 to 14) from
Patna High Court CWJC No.2078 of 2017(2) dt.06-01-2026
3/4
forcibly taking possession over the disputed land.
AND
Further for directing the respondent no.5
for getting demarcated the land in question or for
demarcating the land of the petitioner as well as the
land of the respondent no.8 to 14 for resolving the
permanent dispute between the parties through a
Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner according to
the map contained in Annexure-4 to this writ
application.
And/Or
For passing such other order or orders for
which the petitioner will be found entitled in the eye
of law.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits there was
a dispute with the private respondent after he was constructing the
building. The proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. took
place and decided in favour of respondent no. 8, Panna Lal Patel.
Thereafter, he just wanted demarcation/measurement of his land
vis a vis Panna Lal Patel which was rejected by successive Court
up to the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No. 246 of
2015 (Ishwar Lal Prasad vs. State & Ors.).
4. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.2078 of 2017(2) dt.06-01-2026
4/4
as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a dispute
arose, it led to proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., decided in
favour of respondent no. 8. The natural course of action of the
petitioner thereafter should have been before a competent Civil
Court. Instead, he took a different route.
5. This Court is in agreement with the submission put
forward by the learned State counsel. The petitioner instead of
wasting the time should have approached the competent Civil
Court so that the matter is adjudicated and to be accepted by all.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he shall be taking the Civil Court route for the
redressal of the grievance.
7. Granting said liberty and if such petition is preferred
it is expected that the same will be taken to its logical conclusion
in accordance with law, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…