Patna High Court
Uma Shankar PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable as the dispute is sub‑judice in a civil title suit and must be decided by the competent civil court.
Summary
The petitioners, four brothers, filed a writ petition alleging that the Circle Officer of Patna City acted arbitrarily, illegally and maliciously, and that private respondents committed criminal acts while the police failed to act. They contend that these actions obstruct the progress of a pending Title Suit No. 222 of 2002 concerning land rights, despite the suit being stamped by higher courts. The State argued that the dispute should be resolved by the civil court where the title suit is pending. The High Court agreed, noting that the petitioners had produced ample documentary evidence but that the appropriate forum is the civil court, and directed that the suit be expedited within a year. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any order against the respondents.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the same dispute is sub‑judice in a civil title suit.
- Whether the actions of the Circle Officer and police constitute arbitrary or illegal conduct warranting writ relief.
Subjects
- writ petition
- civil jurisdiction
- title suit
- land dispute
- arbitrary action
- police inaction
- sub‑judice
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3882 of 2026
======================================================
1. Uma Shankar Prasad Son of Late Mishri Mahto Resident of Khemhichak,
P.O.- New Jaganpura, P.S.- Ramkrishnanagar, District- Patna.
2. Ramashish Mahto, Son of Late Mishri Mahto Resident of Khemhichak,
P.O.- New Jaganpura, P.S.- Ramkrishnanagar, District- Patna.
3. Shakaldeo Mahto, Son of Late Mishri Mahto Resident of Khemhichak, P.O.-
New Jaganpura, P.S.- Ramkrishnanagar, District- Patna.
4. Yogendra Mahto, Son of Late Mishri Mahto Resident of Khemhichak, P.O.-
New Jaganpura, P.S.- Ramkrishnanagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Circle Officer, Patna City, District- Patna.
3. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Patna City, District- Patna.
4. The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), Patna City, District-
Patna.
5. The Station House Officer, Agamkuan Police Station, Patna.
6. Ramchandrareshwar Mahto, Son of Late Ganga Mahto Resident of Bari
Pahari, P.S.- Agam Kuan, Town and District- Patna.
7. Rajaram Mahto, Son of Shyama Mahto Resident of Bari Pahari, P.S.- Agam
Kuan, Town and District- Patna.
8. Rajballabh Mahto, Son of Shyama Mahto Resident of Bari Pahari, P.S.-
Agam Kuan, Town and District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Pankaj Mijorwar, Advocate
: Ms. Deeksha, Advocate
: Mr. Akshat Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Nagadeo Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Archana Meenakshee, GP-6
: Mr. Rana Veer Prawar, AC to GP-6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 Heard Mr. Pankaj Mijorwar, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Archana Meenakshee, learned GP-6
representing the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3882 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
2. The present petition has been preferred:
“against the arbitrary, illegal, and malafide
actions of the Respondent No. 2, the Circle
Officer, Patna City, and the consequential
criminal acts of the private respondents, coupled
with the complete inaction of the police
authorities (Respondent No. 5).”
3. The petitioners contend that a Title Suit No. 222 of
2002 is pending before a competent court of learned Sub-Judge,
Patna and the parties are contesting there. Further, submission is
that so far as the ‘Baksisnama’ is concerned, it has been stamped
by successive Courts including the Hon’ble Apex Court against
the respondents but still they are putting spoke in the wheels
instead of pursing the case/Title Suit.
4. The submission is that neither the Title Suit is
being concluded nor they are being allowed to live in peace and
this led them to file present writ petition.
5. Learned State counsel submits that a Title Suit is
pending and all these facts should have been brought before the
competent Civil Court.
6. This Court is in conformity with the submission put
forward by the learned State counsel, however, since the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3882 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
petitioner has brought on record number of documents to show
his bonafide as also the attitude of the respondents, without
commenting further, this Court would appreciate if the
competent court where the Title Suit No. 222 of 2002 is
pending, expedites the case and conclude the same without
unnecessary delay preferably within a period of one year.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.