Patna High Court
Surya Narayan SinghversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that while the revenue authorities must comply with the Divisional Commissioner’s order and may be in contempt for non‑compliance, the writ petition seeking mandamus was not granted and was disposed.
Summary
The petitioner, Surya Narayan Singh, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State authorities to restore possession of a disputed land parcel in favour of the petitioner, based on an order dated 24‑02‑2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, in Banka Misc. (BLDR) Appeal No. 118/2013‑14. The dispute centres on competing claims of possession: the petitioner alleges continuous possession since a 1917 Hukumnama, while the respondents claim ancestral possession for over a century supported by a 1907 khatian. The High Court noted that the revenue authorities had failed to implement the Commissioner’s order and that the matter had remained unresolved for about a decade. The Court observed that non‑compliance could amount to contempt and directed the revenue officials to issue notices and pursue a final determination, but it did not grant the writ of mandamus. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without relief, with a direction for the authorities to act on the pending order.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the revenue authorities to restore possession of the land as per the Divisional Commissioner’s order.
- Whether the failure of the revenue authorities to comply with the Commissioner’s order amounts to contempt of court.
- Whether the petition is maintainable in the absence of a civil suit filed by the parties.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- land possession
- revenue law
- contempt of court
- civil writ jurisdiction
- land reforms
- title dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2226 of 2016
======================================================
Surya Narayan Singh Son of Late Prayag Narayan Singh Resident of village -
Surakol, P.O. Jogdiha, P.S. and District - Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur
3. The District Magistrate, Banka
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Banka District Banka
5. The Circle officer, Banka, P.S. and District - Banka
6. Jugal Yadav Son of Dhuran Mahto
7. Loungi Yadav Son of Late Puran Mahto
8. Suphali Yadav Son of Late Puran Mahto
9. Manni Yadav Son of Loungi Yadav
10. Dhani Yadav Son of Loungi Yadav All residents of village - Surakol, P.O.
Jogdiha, P.S. and District - Banka
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Ram Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Keshav Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, AAG-14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-02-2026 Heard Mr. Parmatma Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“for issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs in the nature of writ mandamus
commanding upon the respondents concerned to
restore the possession of the disputed land in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2226 of 2016(3) dt.16-02-2026
2/5
favour of the petitioner in compliance of the
order of learned Commissioner, Bhagalpur
(respondent no.2) in Banka Misc. (BLDR)
Appeal Case No. 118/2013-14 dated
24.02.2014.”
3. In Banka Misc. (BLDR) Appeal Case No. 118 of
2013-14 (Surya Narayan Singh vs. Dhuran Mahto), the
Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur on 24.02.2014 passed a
short order as under:
“This appeal has been filed against the
order dated 27.08.2013 passed in BLDR Case
No. 52/2013-14 by the DCLR Banka. The
appellant has stated that the disputed land
located in Mouza Rainia, Thana No. 95, Anchal
Banka, P.S Banka, District- Banka bearing
Khata No. 136 Khesra No. 1202 area 04
decimals which was acquired by Prayag Singh
S/o Shrinath Singh by Hukumnama of 1917 from
the Laxmipur Estate and the Ex/landlord granted
rent receipt in respect of the land in question and
recognized the tenancy of Prayag Singh over the
land. The Ex/landlord submitted Return in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2226 of 2016(3) dt.16-02-2026
3/5
name of Prayag Singh and Jamabandi No. 467
was created and rent receipts were issued to
Prayag Singh. In an amicable settlement
amongst the sons of Prayag Singh, the appellant
got the right over the land in dispute. The
members of the respondents dispossessed the
appellant on 29.04.2013. The respondent
members are claiming their right on the basis of
copy of khatian of 1907 which stands in the
name of Sattan Mahto.
The respondents have stated that the
appeal petition is not maintainable. The
appellant wants to harass them since they are
poor persons. The respondents claim that they
are in possession of the land in dispute since
beginning. the Cadastral Survey Khatian was
done in the name of Sattan Mahto S/o Gopes
Mahto who was ancestor of the respondents.
On going through the details of the
case, I find that the appellant is claiming that he
and his ancestors had in possession since 1917
and he was dispossessed in 2013 and the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.2226 of 2016(3) dt.16-02-2026
4/5
has been confirmed by the report of Anchal
Amin. However the respondents claim that they
ancestors have been in continuous possession for
more than 100 years. In this circumstances, the
Anchal Adhikari is hereby directed to conduct
spot inspection and find out whether the
appellant and his ancestors were in continuous
possession of the land on the basis of
Hukumnama of 1917. If is is found that the
appellant had been in continuous possession
(before dispossession on 29.4.2013) after getting
the Hukumnama, the possession of the appellant
should be restored. If it is found that the
respondents and their ancestors have been in
continuous possession since last 100 years, the
appellant cannot claim his right on the basis of
Hukumnama. The Anchal Adhikari should do the
spot inspection within 15 day of the receipt of the
order. The case is hereby disposed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to
his knowledge, no title case has been filed but the revenue
authorities have chosen to look the other way and failed to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2226 of 2016(3) dt.16-02-2026
5/5
comply the order.
5. The State as usual has not filed any affidavit and on
call, prayer for adjournment has been made.
6. This Court has an option to impose cost while
allowing the adjournment, alternatively, it would be appropriate
that since the matter is pending for a decade, the revenue
authorities are directed to look into the matter, issue necessary
notices to the parties and take the matter to its logical
conclusion if still not concluded.
7. This order is being passed on the categorical
statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither of
the parties have moved before the competent Civil Court.
8. Needless to add, failure to comply the order by the
Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur as recorded above, the
revenue authorities may be inviting contempt.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…