Patna High Court
Krishna DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The impugned order dated 03.12.2025 is quashed and set aside, and a committee is directed to determine possession and facilitate mutation in favor of the petitioner.
Summary
Krishna Devi purchased land in Sitamarhi and applied for mutation, which the Circle Officer rejected despite a prior order by the District Collector (DCLR) quashing the earlier rejection. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus to compel the mutation and to restrain the Circle Officer from further harassment. The State argued that the Circle Officer acted in accordance with Section 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Rule 5(10) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012, which require possession by the applicant. The Court examined whether the Circle Officer’s order violated statutory provisions and the petitioner’s constitutional right to property under Article 300A. Relying on precedents that protect property rights and allow restoration of possession, the Court quashed the impugned order, directed a three‑member committee to investigate possession, and ordered that the land be vacated for the petitioner’s peaceful possession.
Issues considered
- Whether the Circle Officer can lawfully reject the mutation application despite the vendor’s possession and the DCLR’s earlier order.
- Whether the rejection violates Section 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Rule 5(10) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012.
- Whether the High Court can, under Article 226, grant relief of restoration of possession and mandamus directing mutation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- mutation
- land revenue
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Article 300A
- property rights
- Bihar Land Mutation Act
- possession
- restoration of possession
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.348 of 2026
======================================================
Krishna Devi W/o - Jai Kishor Chaudhari, R/o Vill Madhiya, P.S Sonbarsa,
Dis Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Collector, Sitamarhi.
2. The District Collector, Sitamarhi, Dist- Sitamarhi.
3. The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi, Dist-Sitamarhi.
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sitamarhi, Dist -Sitamarhi.
5. The Anchal Adhikari, Sonbarsa, Dis-Sitamarhi.
6. The halka Karamchari Anchal, Sonbarsa, Dist Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Manish, SC 5
Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-01-2026
Heard Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Manish,
learned SC 5 along with Mr. Kumar Pankaj, learned AC to SC 5
for the State.
2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following
reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-
“(i) In the nature of certiorari for setting aside
the order dated 03.12.2025 passed in Mutation Case
NO.1154 /2025-2026 by the Circle Officer, Sonbersa
whereby and whereunder the Mutation application of the
petitioner has been rejected.
ii. In the nature of mandamus directing and
commanding the respondent authorities to enter the name of
the petitioner in mutation records in view of direction
passed by the learned D.C.L.R., Sitamarhi Sadar vide order
dated 01.02.2025 in Mutation Appeal No.1003/2024-25 and
in view of order dated 26.08.1995 passed in T.S.
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
2/13
No.52/1986, 21/1995 learned Sub Judge, III, Sitamarhi.
iii. In the nature of mandamus directing and
commanding particularly the Collector, Sitamarhi
(respondent 2) to take action against the Circle Officer,
Sonbarsa who his intentionally harassing the petitioner and
rejecting the claim of mutation repeatedly.
iv. For issuance of any other relief or reliefs
for which the petitioner is entitled for in the fact and
circumstances of the instant case.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased a piece of
land vide a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2023 from one
Mukund Kumar Shahi, situated in Mauza- Sihwahini, P.S.
Sonbarsa, District, Sitamarhi. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
application before the Circle Officer, Sonebarsa for mutation of
the said land. The Circle Officer, Sonbarsa rejected the
application of the petitioner vide order dated 14.06.2024.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing mutation
Appeal No.1003/2024-2025 before the D.C.L.R., Sitamarhi
Sadar and who vide order dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure P/4)
quashed and set aside the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the
Circle Officer, Sonebarsa and remanded the matter to the Circle
Officer to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
However, without complying with the direction and order
passed in Mutation Appeal No.1003/2024-25 by the D.C.L.R.,
Sitamarhi Sadar, the Circle Officer again rejected the
application of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
3/13
that after remand, the Circle Officer again on the basis of similar
reason has reiterated the order dated 14.06.2024, without
applying his mind by passing a speaking order in accordance
with the mandate of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act,
2011. He further submitted that the Circle Officer has not
conducted inquiry on his own, rather he relied upon the report of
the Karmchari dated 29.06.2025 and in the most mechanical
manner without analyzing the case of the respective parties, the
Circle Officer has again deliberately rejected the application for
mutation of the land, though he has admitted that the objections
were received from 28-30 persons, who were in possession of
the land, which the petitioner had purchased by a valid sale deed
dated 22.07.2023, executed by the grandson of the original land
holder late Shiya Sharan Shai, in whose name the Jamabandi
Nos.1294 and 1295 are standing. Aggrieved by the arbitrary
action of the Circle Officer, learned counsel submitted that
though the petitioner has alternative remedy to file appeal
before the D.C.L.R. against the order dated 03.12.2025 but the
same will be of no relevance, considering the admitted fact that
the Circle Officer is pre-determined to reject the application of
the petitioner without assigning any reason. The reason which
the Circle officer has assigned is not in accordance with the law
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
4/13
as the impugned order has been passed without mentioning the
respective case of the petitioner and the objectors and also
without giving the names of the objectors who according to the
Circle Officer are in possession of the land which has been sold
by the vendor of the petitioner to the petitioner by a valid sale
deed. Learned counsel further submitted that the Circle Officer
has not analyzed, as to whether, the vendor was in possession of
the land, rather he has simply rejected the application of the
petitioner on the report of the Karmcahari that 28 to 30 persons
were in possession over the land. No notice was issued to the
vendor. On these grounds also, he wants interference of this
Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submitted that the Circle Officer has not committed
any illegality in rejecting the mutation case of the petitioner in
view of the fact that he has acted in accordance with the
provision of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and
the procedure prescribed under sub-Rule (10) of Rule 5 of the
Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012 as amended uptodate. There is
no procedural lapses and the conditions stipulated in the Rules
mandates that the petitioner should be in physical possession
over the land and as such in terms of the report submitted by
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
5/13
the Karamchari that in view of the fact that already the land
having been in possession of 28 to 30 persons, it is not possible
to hand over the possession to the petitioner in respect of the
those lands detailed in the sale deed dated 22.07.2023.
Answering to the submission made by the petitioner, he
submitted that vendor was not noticed can only be seen from the
order sheet of the Mutation Case and no objection to that effect
was also made by the petitioner, who was given an opportunity
to be heard by the Circle Officer. There is complete failure on
the part of the petitioner, who has not taken recourse to the
statutory efficacious legal remedy available to her instead of
that, she has proceeded to file the present writ petition, which is
premature and, as such, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
5. Heard the parties.
6. I have perused the evidence brought on record.
Petitioner has claimed that she has purchased the aforesaid land
vide sale deed No.10696 dated 22.07.2023 from her vendor
Mukund Kumar Shahi. The sale deed has been brought on
record and in paragraph no.5 the land executed in favour of the
petitioner is described as under:-
Khata No. Survey Plot Total Area
No./Khesra No.
1295 4560 4 decimals
1295 35 1 Decimal
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
6/13
1295 37 1 Decimal
1295 36 2 Decimals
1295 4561 4 Decimals
1295 4562 2 Decimals
1295 34 21 Decimals
7. The vendor of the petitioner is the descendant of
erstwhile Jamindar, late Raghuwar Shahi and the jamabandi
nos.1294 and 1295 were created in the name of his late son Sita
Sharan Shahi. The vendor of the petitioner was regularly paying
rent receipt to the Government of Bihar and the revenue receipt
in respect of the land in their possession has been brought on
record by way of Annexure P/2. One of the descendants of late
Sita Sharan Shahi, namely, Janki Sharan Shahi filed title Suit
N.52/1986, 21/1995 before the Sub-judge, Sitamarhi and the
suit was decided in favour of Mukund Kumar Shahi, the vendor
of the petitioner and his brothers. Petitioner has purchased the
land from said Mukund Kumar Shahi vide registered sale deed
dated 22.07.2023.
8. From the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed
in Mutation Case No.1154/ 2025-2026, it appears that the
vendor of the petitioner has not been noticed and the Circle
Officer has proceeded to determine the possession of the
petitioner on the basis of information that 28 to 30 persons are
in possession of the said piece of land.
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
7/13
9. Question involved in the present case, as to
whether, the Circle Officer can restrain himself from mutating
the land in question as described above in name of the petitioner
when revenue record reveals that jamabandi Nos.1294 and 1295
are running in the name of the ancestor of the vendor, namely,
Sita Sharan Shahi, S/o late Raghuwar Shahi?
10. The impugned order reveals that the Circle
Officer has not gone into to determine the said fact and without
considering the same, he has rejected the application of the
petitioner on the ground that sub-rule (10) of Rule 5 of Bihar
Land Mutation Rules, 2012 don’t permit to mutate the land
which is not in possession of the parties, seeking mutation.
11. Next question arises, as to whether, this Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, if, in alternative, the vendor of the petitioner is not in
possession of the land in question, can restore the possession?
12. In this regard, I find that the similar issue fell for
consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of Smt.
Indrawati Devi v. Bulu Ghosh, reported in 1988 BBCJ (HC)
307, wherein the Patna High Court held that the inherent power
of the Court are meant to be exercised in such situations where
nothing is more demoralising to a law abiding citizen than to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
8/13
told by the Court that it is helpless in the matter of the affording
him any protection even when his adversary has acted with
impunity, contrary to all known legal procedures and that too
after submitting to the Courts jurisdiction. To tolerate such an
injustice would itself amount to perpetrating injustice in its most
blatant form.
13. This Court, in the case of Hindustan Petrolium
Corporation v. State of Bihar, reported in 1996 (2) Pat LJR
621 : (AIR 1996 Pat 163), granted relief of restoration of
possession in a case under writ jurisdiction.
14. In another case of Smt. Manju Devi v. State of
Bihar, reported in 1999 (2) Pat LJR 641, this Court, while
discussing the power conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, held that the rule of law is the very basis
of the constitutional system, which cannot be sacrificed on any
equitable consideration. Even for a defaulter tenant such mode
cannot be allowed to evict him, defies the system of
administration of justice under the laws of the land and such
relief can be granted. In the said case, the possession of the
disputed shop was restored by the High Court in a case under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. The Apex Court in the case of Samir Sobha
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
9/13
Sanyal v. Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Ors., reported in 1996
(4) S1 CC 144, held that the law should be strictly adhered to
high-handedness action of the parties in having the appellant of
the said case dispossessed without due process of law, cannot be
overlooked nor condoned. The Court cannot blink at their
unlawful conduct to dispossess the person from the demised
property and would say that the status quo be maintained. If the
Court gives acceptance to such high handed action, there will be
no respect for rule of law and unlawful elements would be taken
hold of the due process of law for ransom and it would be a field
day for anarchy. Due process of law would be put to ridicule in
the estimate of the law-abiding citizens and rule of law would
remain a mortuary. In the said case, the respondents were
directed to put the appellant in possession within 24 hours.
16. From the order impugned, it is evident that the
vendor of the petitioner has not been able to be heard and it has
been stated on behalf of the petitioner that her vendor was in
possession of the property which has been executed in her
favour. It is also not a case that the government possesses
interest in the said piece of land or the said land was acquired by
the government for settlement of the persons, who according to
the finding of the Circle Officer based on the report of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
10/13
Karamchari has not been allotted any part of land by the
government. The petitioner is entitled for protection of her right
guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India,
who has purchased the land described in above background by a
valid sale deed and as such the Circle Officer cannot reject the
application for mutation for which vendor of the petitioner was
in possession and was making payment of rent to the
Government of Bihar in respect of possession over the land in
question.
17. In this regard, I find it proper to quote the
Article 300- A of the Constitution of India, which states that
“No person shall be deprived of his property save by the
authority of law.” The State cannot disposes a citizen of his
property accept in accordance with law and procedure
prescribed. The obligation to pay compensation is not
expressively included in Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India can be inferred in that Article. The law in this regard is
well settled by the Apex Court in case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020(2) SCC
569, I find it proper to quote the para-12.1 and 12.2 of the said
judgment, which are inter alia reproduced hereinafter;
“12.1. The appellant was forcibly expropriated of her
property in 1967, when the right to property was a
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
11/13
the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to
private property [State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose,
(1953) 2 SCC 688 : AIR 1954 SC 92] , which could not
be deprived without due process of law and upon just
and fair compensation.
12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental
right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act,
1978, however, it continued to be a human right
[Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] in a welfare State, and a
constitutional right under Article 300-A of the
Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall
be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The
State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in
accordance with the procedure established by law. The
obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly
included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article.
[K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9
SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414]”
18. The Apex Court dealing with the similar facts
where the State is required to make payment of due
compensation in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, reported in
(2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491 has held as under;
“11. There are authorities which state that delay and
laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of
these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant
of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago,
recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational
facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc.
Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay
down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking
remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated,
under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at
hand deals with a different scenario altogether. The
functionaries of the State took over possession of the
land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of
law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the
benefit of compensation. The State must either comply
with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or
requisition, or any other permissible statutory
mode.”(emphasis supplied)
19. The proposition of law laid down in the case of
Vidaya Devi (Supra) again reiterated by the Apex Court in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
12/13
case of Sukhdutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
& Ors. reported in 2022LiveLaw(SC)347 in which dealing with
the right of a citizen enshrined under Article 300- A held that
due compensation is required to be paid by the reiterating the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tukaram Kana
Joshi (Supra). The Apex Court held that the State must comply
with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other
permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State
governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status
beyond what is provided by the Constitution.
20. Long possession of the vendor and mutation of
jamabandi in favour of the grandfather of the vendor of the
petitioner itself shows that the Circle Officer has tried to modify
the order passed by the DCLR which has resulted in manifest
illegality resulting into miscarriage of justice. The karamchari
and the Circle Officer can be held responsible for having
committed fraud with the revenue records in garb of the
provision of sub-Rule (10) of Rule 5 of Bihar Land Mutation
Rules, 2012 in absence of reasoned order. Accordingly, the
impugned order dated 03.12.2025 is quashed and set aside.
21. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi is directed to
constitute a three-member-committee, in which one of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026
13/13
officers is required to be of the rank of ADM and two members
must be of rank of Deputy Collector for holding an inquiry over
the land in question and see, as to whether, the persons who are
in possession of the land, which the petitioner has purchased,
have any title over the said land and if they have no valid title,
then in that case, he must exercise his jurisdiction in accordance
with law to get the land vacated, so that peaceful possession of
the land can be handed over to the petitioner.
22. In the meantime, the petitioner may avail
appropriate remedy.
23. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
24. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.01.2026
Transmission Date 22.01.2026
Checking your session…