Patna High Court
Hriday UranwversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that there was no infirmity in the Collector’s order and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek remedy in a civil court.
Summary
The petitioner, Hriday Uranw, filed a writ petition challenging the Collector‑Cum‑District Magistrate’s order dated 27‑03‑2025 which rejected his Settlement Cancellation Appeal concerning land in Khata No. 148, Plot No. 1483. He alleged that the settlement was illegal because the land was allotted to an ineligible holder and that his easement right to a southern paved road was obstructed by houses of other raiyats. The Collector held that the settlement was valid, the petitioner had admitted that other houses existed before his settlement, and that the petitioner had chosen the wrong platform for relief. The High Court examined the Collector’s order and found no infirmity, concluding that the petitioner’s remedy lay in a competent civil court rather than a writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedy.
Issues considered
- The legality of the Collector‑Cum‑District Magistrate’s order rejecting the Settlement Cancellation Appeal
- Whether the petitioner’s easement right to the road is enforceable under the settlement order
- Whether the writ jurisdiction is appropriate for the relief sought
Subjects
- settlement cancellation
- easement right
- land reform
- writ petition
- civil remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2672 of 2026
======================================================
Hriday Uranw Son of Rampati Uranw, Resident of village Adhaura, Kaimur
(Bhabua) Adhaura, P.0. and P.S. Adhaura, District- Kaimur, Bihar- 821102.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Collector -Cum- District-Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua).
3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Kaimur (Bhabua).
4. The Circle Officer, Bhabua, District- Kaimur.
5. Chitra Kala Devi, Wife of Chote Lal Uranw Resident of village- Adhaura,
P.O. and P.S.- Adhaura District- Kaimur (Bhabua).
6. Basanti Devi, Wife of Binod Uranw Resident of village- Adhaura, P.O. and
P.S.- Adhaura District- Kaimur (Bhabua).
7. Sugia Devi, Wife of Ram Prawesh Uranw Resident of village- Adhaura, P.O.
and P.S.- Adhaura District- Kaimur (Bhabua).
8. Fulmatiya Devi, Wife of Ram Prawesh Uranw Resident of village- Adhaura,
P.O. and P.S.- Adhaura District- Kaimur (Bhabua).
9. Urmila Devi, Wife of Vijay Uranw Resident of village- Adhaura, P.O. and
P.S.- Adhaura District- Kaimur (Bhabua).
10. Fulpati Devi, Wife of Radheshyam Uranw Resident of village- Adhaura,
P.O. and P.S.- Adhaura District- Kaimur (Bhabua).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : AC to Government Pleader (26)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned AC to
Government Pleader (26) for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia the following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2672 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
"That the instant writ petition is being filed in
this Hon'ble Court against the Order dated 27.03.2025
passed by the learned Collector-Cum-District Magistrate
Kaimur (Bhabua) in Settlement Cancellation Appeal
No.02/2025 whereby learned Collector after hearing the
case erroneously and illegally rejected the Appeal and
submitted that it is clear from the record that in the
proposal the said settlement holder has been consider in the
suitable category /well deserve category and settlement has
been made in his name, as far as the Appellant has stated in
his statement that the southern paved road of settlement
holder Khesra No.1483 in which villagers and Appellants
used for coming and going are said to blocked while on the
other hand it is pointed out that settlement holder are
ineligible category land holder and settlement of land
should be allotted to landless person of the eligible
category which is contradict each other. There is no
obstruction to reach the paved rural road constructed from
the settlement land."
3. The Settlement Cancellation Appeal No. 02 of 2025
of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Magistrate-
cum-Collector vide order dated 27.03.2025 taking into
consideration the information that the settlement, which was
made in respect of the land appertaining to Khata No. 148, Plot
No. 1483, Mauza- Aghaura measuring total area 16 dissmil,
which the petitioner claim, after order passed in Settlement Case
No. 01/2023-24, it was found that the road is accessible from
the plot in question from south, over which houses of other
raiyat are built and the petitioner is aggrieved of his
easementary right to access to the road.
4. I don't find any infirmity in the order of the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, who vide order dated 27.03.2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.2672 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
dismissed the Settlement Cancellation Appeal No. 02 of 2025
filed by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner having admitted that before the land
was settled in his favour, house of the other settlee was built up.
Since houses of other raiyats were already in existence in the
vicinity of the land, for access of the road, the petitioner has
chosen wrong platform.
6. The petitioner's easementary right is affected, he
has remedy before the competent Civil Court having
jurisdiction.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate
remedy.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U
Checking your session…