Patna High Court
Krishna MahtoversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the 1988 order dismissing the title suit remains effective, granting the petitioner full rights over the pond, and therefore the 2017 memo cannot override his title.
Summary
Krishna Mahto claimed ownership of a pond (Khata No. 314, Survey No. 2154) in Dhanauti, Saran, based on a title suit dismissed in 1988 that affirmed his title. In 2017 the District Fisheries Officer issued Memo No. 1153 settling the same pond with locals under an open‑bid scheme for the 2017‑18 and 2018‑19 periods, prompting the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus to quash the memo and exclude the pond from jalkar sairat. The State respondents argued that the petition merely restated the earlier suit’s dismissal. The Court observed that the 1988 order remained in force, giving the petitioner full rights to enjoy the land, and noted that the State had taken no action to alter that status. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, effectively rejecting the relief sought. The petitioner was advised that he could agitate the matter again if circumstances changed.
Issues considered
- Whether Memo No. 1153 dated 21‑12‑2017, settling the pond with locals, is valid in view of the earlier dismissal of the title suit confirming the petitioner's ownership.
- Whether the State can exclude the pond from jalkar sairat contrary to the petitioner’s title.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to quash the memo and compel the respondents to respect the petitioner’s rights.
Subjects
- land ownership
- jalkar
- mandamus
- title suit
- Bihar Jalkar Prabandh Act
- settlement memo
- pond
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2357 of 2018
======================================================
Krishna Mahto S/o Late Baksar Mahto, resident of Village- Dhanauti, P.O.
Mashrak, P.S. Panapur, District Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Fisheries and Animal Husbandry,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
5. The Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra.
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saran, Chapra.
7. The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Saran Range, Chapra.
8. The District Fisheries Officer Cum chief Executive Officer, Saran Chapra.
9. The Circle Officer, Panapur, Saran.
10. The Block Development Officer, Panapur, Saran.
11. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bakwa, Panapur, Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Kaushalendra Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Radhesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
7 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, 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):
“(i) for issuance of writ in the nature
of mandamus commanding respondents to quash
the memo no.1153 dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2357 of 2018(7) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
5) with regard to the petitioner at serial no. 7
issued under the signature of respondent no. 8
whereby and where under an open bid for 24
Ponds/Jalkars invited for unsettled jalkars from
period 2017-18 to 2018-19 (till 30.06.2019)
including allotted bhoodan Dhanauti Jalkar
bearing Khata no. 314, Khesra no. 2154 to
petitioner 02.06.1997 under the provisions of
Bihar Jalkar Prabandh Act 2006.
(ii) for commanding respondents to
exclude Dhanauti Jalkar bearing Khata no. 314,
Khesra no.2154 from Jalkar Sairat.
(iii) for any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner is entitled for int the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
3. The matter relates to the land as under :
Khata No. 314, Survey No. 2154,
Thana No.72, Area 1 Acre 20 Decimal in the
village Dhanauti, Panapur, Saran.
4. The submission is that pursuant to the grant of the
said area in favour of the petitioner/his father, time and again
Patna High Court CWJC No.2357 of 2018(7) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
disturbance were made and in continuation of that, the
Mashrakh Fisheries Cooperative Society preferred Title Suit No.
33 of 1984 against the petitioner/his father for the said land
which came to be dismissed on 12.05.1988 by the competent
Civil Court, Chapra (Annexure-6 to the petition).
5. He submits that no appeal has been preferred by
any of the parties and the family is enjoying the fruits of the said
land/pond. However, the District Fisheries Officer, Saran,
Chapra (respondent no.8) vide memo no. 1153 dated 21.12.2017
(Annexure-5 to the petition) settled the said pond with the locals
under an agreement for the period 2017-18 to 2018-19 forcing
him to prefer the writ petition. Upon query, whether after the
lapse of the said agreement in the year 2019, further
development has taken place, the answer is in negative.
6. The submission is that they are fully in command
of the land in question and to their best of knowledge, the State
who claims it to be their land has not preferred any appeal
against the order in question.
7. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the
respondent nos. 4, 8 and 9 duly signed by the Circle Officer,
Panapur, Saran, Chapra and they have just narrated the same
story which has been incorporated by the petitioner in his writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.2357 of 2018(7) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
petition recording that the Title Suit stand dismissed little
realizing that it is the case of the petitioner that the Title Suit
preferred against them stands dismissed.
8. This Court is of the opinion that State respondents
despite knowledge about the filing of the writ petition and the
claim of the petitioner over the land in question as also the order
passed in Title Suit No. 33/59 of 1984/1987, have not taken any
action. In that background, till the order dated 12.05.1988 in the
aforesaid Title Suit prevails, the petitioner has all the
rights/power to enjoy the fruits of the land in question. As
recorded above, the District Fisheries Officer, Saran, Chapra has
not taken any further step for settlement of the said pond in
favour of anyone as submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
9. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of,
with the aforesaid observation. Needless to add, the petitioner
will always have the liberty to agitate the matter, if situation so
want.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…