Patna High Court
Vidhyanand BhadaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners must first file their response to the notice and the Circle Officer is bound to consider it and pass a reasoned order, leading to the disposal of the writ petition.
Summary
Petitioners Vidhyanand Bhadani and Dhiraj Kumar filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 13 September 2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Makhdumpur, which demanded they explain ownership of land and threatened demolition of their shop. They sought certiorari to quash the notice on the ground that the Circle Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction, and mandamus to restrain any demolition. The State argued that the notice was valid and that the petitioners should respond to it before approaching the court. The Court held that the petitioners must first submit their response to the Circle Officer, who is duty‑bound to consider it and pass a reasoned order. The Court directed that this process be completed within three months of the order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the Circle Officer had jurisdiction to issue the notice demanding explanation of land ownership.
- Whether the petitioners were required to first respond to the notice before seeking judicial intervention.
- Whether the writ petition for certiorari and mandamus should be entertained in view of procedural requirements.
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- jurisdiction
- land ownership
- administrative law
- notice
- circle officer
- disposal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2292 of 2026
======================================================
1. Vidhyanand Bhadani Son of Sacchidanand Bhadani, Resident of Village and
P.O. and P.S.- Tehta, Block- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.
2. Dhiraj Kumar, Son of Vidyanand Bhadani, Resident of Village and P.O. and
P.S.- Tehta, Block- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,
Jehanabad.
2. The Additional Collector, Jehanabad.
3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), Jehanabad.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Jehanabad.
5. The Circle Officer, Makhdumpur, Jehanabad.
6. The Station House Officer (S.H.O.), P.S.- Tehta, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Sushant Srivastava, Advocate
Mrs. Sonali Priya, Advocate
Mr. Abhiyanshu Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (11)
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, AC to GA-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sushant Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“I. That the present writ application is
being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ
order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing and setting-aside Notice dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.2292 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
13.09.2025 issued by the Circle Office, Jehanabad
by which petitioners are being harassed and called
upon to explain their ownership of the land on the
ground that the same is wholly without jurisdiction
and beyond the powers conferred on the Circle
Officer by any law.
II. That the present writ application is
being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ
order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of mandamus
for restraining the concerned respondents
particularly to the respondent nos. 3 and 5 to not
demolish/ destroy or remove the Shop/ "Gumti" of
the petitioner from their land without any lawful
proceedings in this regard;
III. And for issuance of any other relief
or relief(s) for which the petitioner is entitled for.”
3. A notice has been issued to him by the respondent
no. 5, the Circle Officer, Makhdumpur, Jehanabad. Instead
replying to the said notice (Annexure-P/4), the petitioner has
rushed to the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
had approached the concerned Circle Office but the response
Patna High Court CWJC No.2292 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
was not taken/considered.
5. Learned State counsel submits that if such notice
has been issued, the Circle Officer, Makhdumpur, Jehanabad is
duty bound to receive the response so that the matter is taken to
its logical conclusion. The further submission is that the notice
is dated 13.09.2025 and the writ petition has been filed on
09.02.2026.
6. This Court accepts the view point put forward by
learned State counsel. The petitioner should submit his response
before the concerned Circle Officer, Makhdumpur, Jehanabad
who is duty bound to look into it and after hearing all the
parties, shall be passing a reasoned order.
7. The entire development must take place within a
period of three months from which the petitioner submits his
response.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…