Patna High Court
Biteshwar PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the petitioner must prefer an appeal to the District Magistrate under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and a stay of demolition is granted pending that appeal.
Summary
Petitioner Biteshwar Pandey, an elderly resident, filed a writ petition seeking quash of a notice dated 04‑12‑2025 issued by the Circle Officer directing removal of alleged encroachment on his residential house and boundary wall situated on 24 decimals of land. The notice was issued under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and a final notice under Section 6(2) was served without the petitioner receiving the earlier notice, preventing him from filing a show‑cause. The petitioner also filed a title suit claiming ancestral ownership. The State argued that the 1956 Act is a complete code and that any grievance must be pursued by an appeal to the District Magistrate under Section 11. The High Court held that the writ petition could not substitute the statutory appeal, directed the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days, and stayed demolition of the structures pending the appeal. The District Magistrate was instructed to dispose of the appeal within four months after hearing all parties.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for a petitioner aggrieved by a final notice under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 – a writ petition or an appeal under Section 11 of the Act?
- Whether the High Court can stay the demolition of structures pending the filing and disposal of the statutory appeal.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 — s. 11, 3, 6(2)
Subjects
- encroachment
- public land
- writ jurisdiction
- stay of execution
- appellate authority
- Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act
- property rights
- senior citizen
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20957 of 2025
======================================================
Biteshwar Pandey Son of Late Ram Janam Pandey Resident of Village-
Panditpur, P.S.- Badhara, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
State of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhojpur.
4. The Circle Officer, Badhara, Bhojpur.
5. The Anchal Amin, Circle Office, Badhara, Bhojpur.
6. Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Ram Pandey Resident of Village-
Panditpur, P.O.- Dumaria, P.S.- Badhara, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (18)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.
2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing
the notice, dated 04.12.2025, issued by the respondent no.
4-Circle Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur, directing the
petitioner to remove the encroachment from the land in
question, situated in R. S. Khata No. 113, R. S. Plot Nos.
122 and 124, having an area of 24 decimals.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
residential house of the petitioner and boundary wall is
situated upon the subject land, for which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20957 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
encroachment proceeding, bearing Encroachment Case
No. 1 of 2024-25, was initiated and notice under Section
3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in
short, the 1956 Act’) was issued. She further submits that
the petitioner is a very old person. He did not receive the
notice and could not submit his show cause before the
Circle Officer, leading to passing of the final order and a
final notice under Section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act, dated
04.12.2025, has been issued by the Circle Officer for
removal of encroachment from the land in question.
4. Learned Counsel next submits that the land is the
ancestral land of the petitioner. A title suit has been filed
after the order was passed by the Circle Officer.
5. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the 1956 Act is
a complete code and under Section 11 of the 1956 Act,
the District Magistrate is the appellate authority. As such,
the petitioner may prefer an appropriate appeal before the
District Magistrate against the final order and the final
notice passed by the Circle Officer.
6. Considering the nature of dispute and the prayer made in
the writ application, this writ application is disposed with
liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20957 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
final order/notice passed by the Circle Officer for removal
of encroachment and if such an appeal is filed by the
petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, the
District Magistrate, Bhojpur, shall dispose the appeal in
accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and all other concerned within a period of
four months from the date of filing of the appeal.
7. Till the disposal of the appeal, the structures/house/
boundary wall upon the subject land shall not be
demolished.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √
Checking your session…