Patna High Court
Shyama Kant PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner must seek relief under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009.
Summary
Shyama Kant Prasad, a settled land holder of 1.80 acres in Bankatwa, alleges that respondents 11‑13 have illegally encroached upon his land and seeks a writ directing removal of the encroachment and protection of his cultivation. The State counsel contended that under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009, the petitioner has a specific statutory remedy before a competent authority. The court examined the provisions of Section 4, which confer exclusive jurisdiction to the designated authority for disputes involving unauthorized dispossession of settled land. It held that the petitioner must pursue the remedy under the Act rather than a writ petition, directing him to file a proper petition within eight weeks. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for redress of alleged illegal encroachment on settled land under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009?
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when a specific statutory remedy under Section 4 of the Act is available?
Subjects
- land encroachment
- settled land
- writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act
- Section 4
- competent authority
- civil remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3583 of 2026
======================================================
Shyama Kant Prasad S/o Narain Prasad Bihari, R/o Village- Bankatwa, P.O.-
Bankatwa, P.S- Jitna, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, East Champaran at
Motihari.
2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran.
3. The Additional Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikrahana, District- East Champaran.
5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sikrahana, District- East Champaran.
6. The Anchal Adhikari, Ghorasahan Anchal, P.S- Ghorasahan, District- East
Champaran.
7. The Anchal Adhikari, Bankatwa, District- East Champaran.
8. The Halka Karamchari, Ghorasahan Block, District- East Champaran.
9. The Anchal Amin, Bankatwa Block, District- East Champaran.
10. The S.H.O., Bankatwa Police Station, District- East Champaran.
11. Jawahar Prasad Yadav, S/o Lal Ram Narain, R/o Village and P.S- Bankatwa,
District- East Champaran.
12. Lal Babu Prasad, S/o Lal Daya Nand, R/o Village and P.S- Bankatwa,
District- East Champaran.
13. Vijay Kumar, S/o Panch Nanda Pd. Yadav, R/o Village and P.S- Bankatwa,
District- East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“I. For issuance of an appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/6
writ/order or direction(s) for directing and
commanding the respondent authorities to remove
the illegal encroachment made by the Respondents
No.- 11 to 13 upon the settled land of the petitioner
under Thana No. 22 bearing Khata No. 12, Plot
No. 190/1, Plot No. 190/3, situated in Village-
Bankatwa, P.S. Ghorasahan, now Police Station.
Jitna, Area 1.80 acres, was settled to the petitioner
vide Case No.- 9/86-87. Anumandaliya Record
No.- 519/30.06.87, Anchal Record No.-9/1986-87
II. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/order or direction(s) for commanding and
directing the respondent authorities to protect the
petitioner in cultivation of his land, which was duly
settled to him, and if necessary, the settled land be
measured, again under the law for which the
petitioner is ready to Mapi/measurement cost,
excluding the remaining land of plot no. 190.
III. For any other relief or reliefs which
the petitioner is entitled for.”
3. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that
under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/6
2009 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner has the
remedy.
4. Section 4 of ‘the Act’ read as follows:
“4. Jurisdiction and authority to resolve
disputes.- (1) The Competent Authority shall
have jurisdiction and authority to hear and
adjudicate, on an application or complaint or on
any application referred to by a Prescribed
Authority or officer, any issue arising out of
following types of disputes:-
(a) Unauthorised and unlawful
dispossession of any settlee or allottee from any
land or part thereof, settled with or allotted to
him under any Act contained in Schedule-1 to
this Act by issuance of any settlement
document/parcha by a Competent Authority;
(b) Restoration of possession of
settled/allotted land in favour of legally entitled
settlee/allottee or his successors/heirs, upon
adjudication of unauthorized and unlawful
dispossession;
Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
4/6
(c) Threatened dispossession of a
legally entitled settlee/allottee;
(d) Any of the matters enumerated in
(a), (b) and (c) above appertaining to raiyati
land;
(e) Partition of land holding;
(f) Correction of entry made in the
Record of Rights including map/ survey map;
(g) Declaration of the right of a
person;
(h) Boundary disputes;
(i) Construction of unauthorized
structure; and
(j) Lis pendens transfer.
(2) The Competent Authority shall not
have jurisdiction to review or reopen any finally
concluded and adjudicated proceeding under
any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1. The
Competent Authority shall exercise his authority
for resolving the dispute brought before him on
Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
5/6
the basis of any final order passed by any of the
authorities empowered to do so in the Acts
contained in Schedule-1 of this Act.
(3) The Competent Authority shall not
have jurisdiction to adjudicate any fresh rights
of allottee/settlee or a raiyat which is not yet
determined and is required to be determined in
accordance with provisions contained in any of
the Acts contained in Schedule-1:Provided that
where rights of allottee/settlee or raiyat are
already determined under any of the Acts
contained in Schedule-1, the Competent
Authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain
cases appertaining to matters enumerated in
sub-section (1).
(4) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (2) and (3) hereinabove,
if no provision is made in any of the Acts
contained in Schedule-1 for determination of
rights of allottee/settlee or raiyat and claimed
right is yet to be determined, it shall be open to
the Competent Authority to finally determine
Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
6/6
such right.
(5) The Competent Authority,
wherever it appears to him that the case
instituted before him involves complex question
of adjudication of title, he shall close the
proceeding and leave it open to parties to seek
remedies before the competent Civil Court.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though he is ready to approach the concerned authority, they
generally take longer time in deciding it.
6. Considering the submission of the parties as also
taking note of Section 4 of ‘the Act’, let the petitioner prefer a
proper petition under ‘the Act’ in next eight weeks before the
Authority concerned who shall be noticing/hearing and taking
the matter to its logical conclusion preferably within a period of
one year from the date, the petition is preferred.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…