Patna High Court
Nagendra Kumar Singh and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is disposed without interfering with the Tribunal's order, but the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of landowners, filed a writ petition seeking to quash two orders: one dated 31 January 2017 by the Bihar Land Tribunal allowing diversion of water in the Karha canal, and another dated 25 February 1994 by the Director of Consolidation that affected irrigation rights. They alleged that both orders were passed without giving notice to the petitioners or the public, thereby jeopardising irrigation for the chakholder/raiyats of Mouza Snodhia. The respondents argued that the Tribunal had already noted the lack of notice and that the petitioners could approach the appropriate authority for relief. The High Court observed that any order affecting public interest must be preceded by proper notice, but it chose not to interfere with the Tribunal's order. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition while granting the petitioners liberty to approach the concerned authority afresh. The decision underscores the procedural requirement of notice before altering water rights.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bihar Land Tribunal's order diverting water in the Karha canal can be quashed for lack of notice to affected parties.
- Whether the Director of Consolidation's 1994 order affecting irrigation rights can be set aside on similar grounds.
- Whether the High Court can intervene in the Tribunal's order under writ jurisdiction.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- notice requirement
- irrigation rights
- water diversion
- land tribunal
- public interest
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2380 of 2018
======================================================
1. Nagendra Kumar Singh
2. Santosh Kumar Singh Both Sons of Late Sant Bilash Singh, Resident of
Village-Sondhila, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar.
3. Most. Sushila devi Wife of Late Rajendra Prasad Singh. Resident of Village-
Sondhila, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar.
4. Harendra Singh @ Harendra Kumar Singh Son of Late Raj Mangal Singh,
Resident of Village-Adrash Nagar Collectriat Road Buxar, P.S. Buxar,
District-Buxar.
5. Sumeshwar Singh Son of Late Raj Mangal Singh Resident of Village-
Sondhila, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar.
6. Arbind KUmar Singh.
7. Rabindra Kumar Singh, Both Sons of Late Ram Bilash Singh, Resident of
Village-Moti Bilash Bhawan, Civil Engineer, Raj Banshi Nagar Road No.1,
Patna, P.S.-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna.
8. Saeda Kuwer @ Sarda Devi Wife of Ram Sighashan Singh.
9. Rabi Kumar.
10. Ramesh Kumar Both Sons of Late Ram Sighashan Singh Petitiner No. 8 to
10 Resident of Village-Bazar Samiti, Gayatri Bhawan Musaffirganj, P.S.-
Buxar, District-Buxar,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Member, Administrative, Bihar Land Tribunal Patna, Bihar.
3. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna.
4. Narmadeshwar Singh
5. Basant Prakash Singh
6. Jagjit Narayan Singh All Sons of Late Raj Bali Singh, Resident of Village-
P.O.-Sondhila, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha-Sc19
For respondent nos. 4 to 6 Mr. Binod Shankar Modi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 16-02-2026 Heard Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026
2/6
the petitioners, the State as also Mr. Binod Shankar Modi,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 04 to 06.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs/Rule/Order or direction for
quashing the order dated 31.1.2017 passed
by respondent No.2 in B. L. T. Case No.567
of 2015 as contained in Annexure-7 by which
the respondent No.2 has pleased to allow the
B.L. T. Case filed by the respondent No.4 to
6 and divert the water flow in Karha from
canal after laps of 22 years and to restore
the drain to its natural course and also
quashed the order dated 25.2.1994 passed
by respondent No.3 in Revision Case No.
3177 of 1988 as contained in Annexure-2 to
this petition, without taking into
consideration that since 1994 all the
chakholder/raiyats of Mouza -Snodhia are
getting the facilities of irrigation of the said
Karha.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026
3/6
3. The matter relates to a piece of land with following
details Chak No. 38 and 39, thana no. 338, circle and district-
Buxar.
4. A short order came to be passed on 25.02.1994 by
the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna (Sant Bilash Singh vs.
the Consolidation Officer, Buxar) and read as follows:
,usDlpj&1
funs”kd] pdcanh dk U;k;ky;] fcgkj] iVukA
dsl la[;k& 201@77
/kkjk& 25
Jh fo'oukFk flag oYn Jh Hkh[kh flag LoxZoklh lkfdu xzke
lksU/khyk] Fkkuk&cDlj] ftyk Hkkstiqj&&&&&&&&&&&&&
vihydrkZ]
cuke
1- cnzhukjk;.k flag oYn Jh f'koukjk;.k flag] LoxZoklh]
lkfdu xzke lksU/khyk] Fkkuk cDlj ftyk Hkkstiqj
vkns'k
1&7&77 bl ekeys dks fnukad 29-6-77 ls LFkfxr dj vkt
fnukad 1&7&77 dks j[kh x;h FkhA ftldh iwoZ lwpuk nh x;h
Fkh tks vfHkys[k ij yxk gqvk gSA vkt nksuksa i{kksa dh mifLFkfr
esa lquokbZ dh x;hA vly erHksn pd la[;k 146 ,oa 1102 dks
ysdj gSA pd la[;k 146] jdck 2&49 ,dM+ izfroknh cnzh uk0
flag dks ,oa pd 1102 jdck 2&42 ,dM+ vkosnd fo'oukFk
flag dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA pd la[;k 146 esa losZ IykWV
la[;k 256] 257] ,oa 258] jdck dqy 0&49 ,dM+ vkosndksa dh
gSA pqafd pd la[;k&146 izfroknh dks vkoafVr gS] blfy,
vkosnd pkgrs gSa fd pd 146] vkosnd dks gh vkoafVr gks tk;]
pd la[;k 1102 dks 0&49 ,0 tehu ij tks cnzh uk0 flag
oxSjg dk [kfr;kuh gS] vkilh gd ,oa gdh;r dk flfoy lwV
yfEcr gSA blfy,] izkFkhZx.k pd la[;k 1102 ysus ls fgpfdpk
jgs gSa vkSj os izfroknh dks vkoafVr pd la[;k 146 dk vius
uke ls djkdj pd la[;k 1102 izfrokfn;ksa ds uke vkoaVu
djkus dh izkFkZuk djrs gSaA
lkjh ckrksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij xkSj djrs gq, fuEukafdr
fu.kZ; fy;s tkrs gSa %&
1& pd la[;k 146 esa lfEefyr losZ IykWV la[;k 256] 257 ,oa
Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026
4/6
258 dqy jdck 49 fM0 tks izkFkhZ dk gS ,oa ftlds ikl 6 fM0
esa dqvka gS] bls pd la[;k 146 ls fudky dj izkFkhZ dks jgus
fn;k tkrk gSA
2& izfroknh cnzh uk0 flag dks bl izdkj 49 Mh0 dh deh gksrh
gSA
mlls pd 1102 esa lfEefyr muds vius IykSV la[;k 1472
jdck 66 fM0 ,oa mlds vkl ikl ds vU; tehuksa ls feykdj
49 fM0 mUgsa nsdj iqjk dj fn;k tk;A
3& izkFkhZ ds pd u0 1102 ls 1&64 ,dM+ tehu pd ua0 32 ls
pd izkFkhZ bUnzthr yky dks ns fn;k tk;A bUnzthr yky dks
pd ua0 1102 ls lVs mRrj pd la[;k 1067 iwoZ ls bUgsa
vkoafVr gSA blfy, mUgsas blesa lqfo/kk gksxhA
4& pd la[;k 1102 esa vc 29 fM0 tehu vihydrkZ ds uke
ij cp tkrk gS ftls pd la[;k 150 tks ,d dgjk ;kstuk gS]
ds lekuqikfr va'k dks foyksfir dj leatu fd;k tk; bl
laca/k esa mejko flag ds fjfHktu ekeyk la[;k 361@77 esa ,slk
vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA vr,o bl vkns'k ls mldk Hkh fuLrkj
le>k tk;A
5& izkFkhZ fo'oukFk flag dks tks pd 1102 jdck 2&42 ,dM+
vkoafVr Fkk mlds cnys 0&49 ,dM+ mUgsa vius rhu losZ IykV
mudks fn;k x;kA pd la[;k 1102 ds mij pd la[;k 32 ds
pd/kkjh ds okil Hkstus ds QyLo:i pd la[;k 32 jdck
1&64 ,dM+ tehu [kkyh gks tkrh gS tks vc izkFkhZ ds vkoafVr
fd;k tkrk gSA tc mUgsa dqy yxHkx 29 fM0 dh deh jgrh gS
tks djgk ds {ks=Qy ls fudkyk x;k gS] vkSj izkFkhZ dks fn;k
tkrk gSA izkFkhZ dk pd la[;k 37 tks bl vkns'k }kjk mUgsa
vkoafVr pd la[;k 32 nksuksa dks pd la[;k 33 ds mRrjh Hkkx
ls dqN tehu ysdj tksM+ fn;k tk;A ,oa pd la[;k 33 dks
lekuqikfrd :i ls nf[ku f?kldk fn;k tk;A
g0 dhfrZ ukjk;.k]
funs'kd] pdcanhA
esjs }kjk ys[kkfir ,oa 'kqf)r
g0 dhfrZ ukjk;.k
funs'kd
esjs }kjk Vafdr fd;k x;k
g0 vLi"V 30&7&77] esjs }kjk dEisfjax fd;k x;k
g0 vLi"V 30&7&77
¼eksgj½ iz'kk[kk inkf/kdkjh
g0 vLi"V
30&7&77
Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026
5/6
5. Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Bihar
Land Tribunal, Patna in BLT Case No. 567 of 2015 with the
prayer that the order in question has been passed ex-parte
directing change of course of the said drain which is going to
adversely affect the petitioner and the public at large.
6. It is to be noted that those who approached ‘the
BLT’ have claim over Chak Nos. 56, 63, 141, 142, 144, 146,
148, 149,153,156 and ‘the Tribunal’ vide its order dated
31.01.2017 after noticing and hearing the parties allowed the
petition holding that the order has been passed without giving
notice to the petitioner and the public. The further observation is
that the 'karha' is the government land and if the course of
drains changed, the petitioners will suffer and there will be loss
of water for irrigating their lands.
7. Aggrieved, the present petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners though submit
that he has multiple points to argue, accept that the order in
question was passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar,
Patna without issuance of the notices to the petitioner/public at
large. He submits that liberty be granted to approach the
Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna afresh.
9. Learned counsel representing the other side on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026
6/6
other hand submits that when the observation of ‘the BLT’
regarding non-issuance of the notice has been accepted, the
respondents have no objection is the petitioners approaching
wherever they want to.
10. In that background, the writ petition is disposed
of without interfering in the order in question while granting
liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for
the redressal of the grievance.
11. Needless to add, if such petition is preferred, all
the aggrieved parties/public has/have to be noticed before any
order is passed.
12. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…