Patna High Court
Rajoo YadavversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that it was not proper to interfere with the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and the Bihar Land Tribunal, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petition filed by Rajoo Yadav sought to quash the Bihar Land Tribunal’s order dated 18 July 2016 which upheld the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea’s order of 31 December 2015 in a land dispute under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009. The dispute originated from a compromise decree passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Araria in 2013, which respondent Parmanand Yadav later contested, alleging he was not noticed and that the compromise documents were forged. The Divisional Commissioner, after examining the alleged forgery and the respondent’s literacy, remitted the matter back to the DCLR for fresh adjudication, a decision later affirmed by the Bihar Land Tribunal. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal’s dismissal was erroneous and that the respondent’s objections warranted interference. The High Court, however, held that the Divisional Commissioner’s order was proper and that the Tribunal was justified in upholding it, and therefore declined to interfere, directing the petitioner to approach the DCLR for a fresh hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bihar Land Tribunal’s order upholding the Divisional Commissioner’s order can be quashed.
- Whether the Divisional Commissioner acted within jurisdiction in remitting the matter back to the DCLR despite alleged forged documents.
- Whether the alleged lack of notice to respondent No.4 and forged signatures affect the validity of the compromise decree.
Subjects
- land dispute
- Bihar Land Tribunal
- Divisional Commissioner
- compromise decree
- forged documents
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2111 of 2017
======================================================
Rajoo Yadav son of Late Kishun Lal Yadav resident of village - Basantpur
Tola, Kharhaiya Basti, P.S. Araria, District - Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea.
3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Araria.
4. Parmanand Yadav Son of Late Ganesh Lal Yadav residents of village -
Basantpur Tola, Kharaiya Basti, P.S. Araria, District - Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bidhanesh Misra, Adv.
Mrs. Tanuja Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Yadav-Gp15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 06-01-2026 Heard Mrs. Tanuja Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) for quashing of the order dated
18.7.2016 passed by Learned Member
Judicial, Bihar Land Tribunal in BLT Case
No. 361/2016 whereby the order dated
31.12.2015 passed by Divisional
Commissioner, Purnea in Land Dispute
Appeal Case No. 159/2014 has been upheld.
(ii) For any other relief or reliefs
for which the petitioner is entitled in the eye
of law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2111 of 2017(2) dt.06-01-2026
2/5
3. The matter relates to a piece of land under Village-
Basantpur in the District of Araria and after the petitioner filed a
case under Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009
(henceforth for short ‘the Act’) vide case no. 89 of 2012-13
before the learned DCLR, Araria. It got disposed of on
02.02.2013 in terms of compromise between the parties
(Annexure-2 to the petition).
4. Subsequently, it seems respondent no. 4,
Parmanand Yadav filed a review petition before the DCLR,
Araria informing that neither he was noticed nor he preferred
any compromise petition. It was rejected on 16.04.2014 on the
ground that the DCLR, Araria do not have the power to review
(Annexure 5 to the petition). Thereafter, the matter went up
before the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Land Dispute
Appeal Case No. 158 of 2014. It was disposed of on 31.12.2015
after hearing all the parties, the learned Commissioner, Purnea
Division came to the conclusion that respondent no. 4 (appellant
before the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea) is a literate person
and as such, there is no reason to put in his LTI, his contention is
that the compromise petition was not preferred.
5. The Commissioner also took note of the submission
of the learned GP that the signatures on the agreement
Patna High Court CWJC No.2111 of 2017(2) dt.06-01-2026
3/5
paper/vakalatnama seems to be forged. In that background,
annulling the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land
Reforms in Case no. 95 of 2012-13, direction was given to hear
the matter afresh (Annexure-6 to the petition).
6. Aggrieved, two set of cases were filed before the
Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, one by Kameshwar Yadav & ors.
(B.L.T. Case No. 360 of 2016) and the second one by this
petitioner (B.L.T. Case No. 361 of 2016).
7. Both the cases were heard on 18.07.2016 and the
‘Tribunal’ having found the order to be just and proper, chose
not to interfere with it and accordingly, the same were
dismissed.
8. It seems that only Rajoo Yadav (BLT Case No. 361
of 2016) has now preferred the present petition assailing the
said order.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Parmanand Yadav accepted the notice, filed a compromise
petition and thereafter changed the track and as such, needs
interference.
10. Learned State Counsel has taken this Court to the
order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Purnea to
show that not only he has recorded that the respondent no. 4 is a
Patna High Court CWJC No.2111 of 2017(2) dt.06-01-2026
4/5
literate and signs the document but the notice shows that he put
in his LTI. Further, the GP also made submission that the
documents (the Vakalatnama/agreement papers) seems to have
forged signature. In that background, he simply remitted the
matter back to the DCLR, Araria for fresh adjudication after
hearing all the parties. In that background, no interference is
required.
11. Having heard the parties and perusing the records,
this Court is in line with the submissions put forward by learned
State Counsel. The learned Commissioner, Divisional
Commissioner, Purnea went into the documents, was fully
satisfied that Parmanand Yadav (respondent no. 4) was not
noticed/heard and in that background, was justified in remitting
back the matter vide an order dated 31.12.2015. It is not the case
of the petitioner that he passed an order in favour of the
respondent no. 4.
12. The BLT, Patna was again fully justified in taking
note of the observation made by the learned Divisional
Commissioner, Purnea while rejecting the claim of the petitioner
as also the other sets of appellants.
13. This Court do not deem it proper to interfere with
the successive order of the learned Divisional Commissioner,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2111 of 2017(2) dt.06-01-2026
5/5
Purnea as also the BLT.
14. The petitioner is well advised to agitate the matter
before the DCLR, Araria as directed by the learned Divisional
Commissioner, Purnea on 31.12.2015.
15. It is expected that the DCLR, Araria shall be
taking up the matter afresh and after hearing the parties, shall be
passing a reasoned order without being prejudiced by any
observation/order passed by the Successive Courts.
16. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…