Patna High Court
Buchi Dai Devi and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISS FOR NON-PROSECUTION
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioners' failure to appear or prosecute the case.
Summary
The petitioners, Buchi Dai Devi, Sushmita Devi and Indrakant Jha, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to protect their land (Khata No. 22, Old Khesra No. 41, New Khesra No. 57, 15 Katha orchard) from threats of arson by respondents No.7 to 13. The petition alleged that the respondents were threatening to set fire to the land unless the petitioners relinquished title and possession. The State counsel argued that the relief sought should have been approached before the appropriate administrative authority rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and the State was the only party present. The Court observed that the petitioners had failed to prosecute the petition and, consequently, dismissed the writ petition. The dismissal was based on procedural default rather than a substantive determination of the merits.
Issues considered
- The petitioners' right to invoke writ jurisdiction for protection of land against alleged threats.
- Whether the appropriate remedy lies in administrative proceedings rather than a writ of mandamus.
- Whether the petition can proceed in the absence of any appearance or representation by the petitioners.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- mandamus
- land protection
- non‑prosecution
- civil writ
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22295 of 2014
======================================================
1. Buchi Dai Devi Wife of Shri Indrakant Jha
2. Sushmita Devi W/o Herakant Jha
3. Indrakant Jha S/o Late Tripti Narayan Jhan All Resident of VillageP.O.-
Hirani, ViaP.S.-Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. District Collector, Darbhanga.
3. Superintendent of Police Darbhanga.
4. S.D.O. Biroul, District-Darbhanga.
5. Anchal Adhikari, Kusheshwar Asthan Satigha District-Darbhanga.
6. Officer-in-Charge, Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga.
7. Ram Sudhari Yadav S/o Late Kujai Yadav
8. Binodanand Yadav S/o Late Kujai Yadav
9. Binay Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Sudhari Yadav
10. Akhilesh Yadav S/o Binodanand Yadav
11. Lalan Yadav S/o Binodanand Yadav
12. Raj Kishore Yadav S/o Binodanand Yadav
13. Sanjay Yadav S/o Binodanand yadav
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Respondent/s : Mr.GP-19- Rajesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners though the
State is present.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for issuance of appropriate writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the official
Patna High Court CWJC No.22295 of 2014(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/2
respondents to protect the land of petitioners of
Khata No. 22 Old Khesra No. 41 New Khesra
No.57 Area 15 Katha (orchard) of Mauza Atraha
P.S. Rosera Now Kusheshwer Asthan Thana no.215
Distt- Darbhanga from Respondent no.7 to 13 who
threaten to all petitioners with fire consequences if
they do not leave all right title and possession over
the aforesaid land.”
3. Learned State counsel submits that a perusal of the
prayer would show that he should have moved before an
appropriate authority instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
4. Be that as it may, since there is no appearance on
behalf of the petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed for
non-prosecution.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…