Patna High Court
Gobardhan PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court held that the writ petition is to be disposed and the petitioner must approach the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance.
Summary
Gobardhan Pandit filed a writ petition seeking a restraining order against respondent No.6 to prevent construction on his land, protection of his family from threats, correction of an erroneous land measurement, and compensation for alleged illegal actions by the respondents. The petitioner also requested that the court direct the officials to award costs and grant any other consequential relief. The State counsel raised no objection to the petitioner's approach to the appropriate authority. The court examined the maintainability of the writ and the scope of its powers to grant the reliefs sought. It concluded that the petitioner should pursue his grievance before the competent authority or court. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for redressal.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable for the reliefs sought against the private respondent and government officials
- Whether the High Court can issue a restraining order and direct correction of land measurement in a civil dispute
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and costs for alleged illegal actions by the respondents
Subjects
- civil writ
- land dispute
- restraining order
- measurement correction
- compensation
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3791 of 2026
======================================================
Gobardhan Pandit S/o Late Laxmi Pandit, Resident of Village Tilakpur post
Majhli and police Station Belhar District Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar throuth principal Secratory Department of Land and
Revenue.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, District Banka.
3. The Circle Officer Belhar, District Banka.
4. The S.H.O. Belhar Police Station, District Banka.
5. The Amin Pintu Sharma, Belhar circle, District Banka.
6. Suresh Pandit, S/o Jagdeo Pandit, R/o Village Tilakpur post Majhli and
police Station Belhar District Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anupa Nand Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel 6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) to restrain the respondent No 6 to doing
any mischievous Acts over the land in
question and also restraining him not to
construct any type of house/shelter or any
type either temporary or permanent
construction on the land in question of the
petitioner till the disposal of the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.3791 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
case;
(ii) to protect the life of the family members
of the petitioner from the official
Respondents as well as private respondent
No 6 who giving threatening in the dire
consequences with the help of the unsocial
elements;
(iii) to direct the Official Respondents to
ensure the measurement of the land in
question of the petitioner which was
incorrect measurement report submitted
before the Circle Officer, Belhar by
measuring another plot which one is not
belongs from the petitioner, but the
Government Amin measured and calculated
26 decimal in favour of the petitioner, which
is wrong;
(iv) to direct the official respondents may
award the cost of litigation and suitable
compensation to the petitioner for the loss
and damages caused on account of the
illegal and arbitrary action of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3791 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
Respondents/Authorities;
(v) to pass such other order/s in such shape
of consequential relief to which the
petitioner is may be found to be legally
entitled in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
3. After some argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he shall be approaching the appropriate
authority for the redressal of the grievance.
4. Learned State counsel has no objection to it.
5. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of
allowing the petitioner to approach the appropriate
authority/competent Court for the redressal of the grievance.
6. If such petition is preferred, the same will be taken
to its logical conclusion at an earliest.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…