Patna High Court
Ram Ekbal Prasad Yadav @ Ram Ekbal PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must first prefer an appeal against the Additional Collector’s order, after which the Collector is duty‑bound to hear all parties, consider the documents, and pass a reasoned order, with the status quo to be maintained in the interim.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Ekbal Prasad Yadav, challenged the cancellation of his family's Jamabandi and subsequent mutation orders that transferred his raiyati land to the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA). He alleged that the Additional Collector, Gopalganj, erred in concluding that two Jamabandis could not coexist and that the mutation proceeding was conducted arbitrarily. The petitioner also sought mandamus to compel the State to produce land acquisition records or to initiate acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and to prevent any forcible possession of the land. The respondents argued that the land originally belonged to SKG Distillery, was lawfully transferred to BIADA, and that the petitioner had the remedy of filing an appeal. The Court observed that the petitioner had not filed an appeal against the Collector’s order and directed that he file a proper petition within two weeks, after which the Collector must hear all stakeholders and pass a reasoned order, while maintaining the status quo. The writ petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Collector's order cancelling the Jamabandi is legally valid and should be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to mandamus directing the State to produce land acquisition records or to initiate acquisition under the 2013 Act.
- Whether the mutation order favouring BIADA is arbitrary and should be set aside.
- Whether the petitioner must first prefer an appeal before seeking writ relief.
- Whether the status quo should be maintained pending the Collector's adjudication.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- Jamabandi cancellation
- mutation
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- Bihar
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3901 of 2025
======================================================
Ram Ekbal Prasad Yadav @ Ram Ekbal Prasad S/o Late Saral Choudhary,
Resident of Jigna Jagarnath, Tola Takalpura, P.S. Mirganj, Distt. Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Gopalganj.
4. The Additional Collector, Gopalganj.
5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hathwa, Dist- Gopalganj.
6. The Circle Officer, Bihta, Hathwa, District- Gopalganj.
7. The Secretary, Department of Industry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
8. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(BIADA), Gopalganj.
9. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(BIADA), Gopalganj.
10. The Development Officer, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(BIADA), Gopalganj.
11. The Managing Director, Bihar State Sugar Mill Corporation, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
: Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel (13)
: Mr. Hitesh Suman, AC to SC-13
For the BIADA : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Abu Nasar, Advocate
: Mr. Aakash Singh, Advocate
For the Sugar Mill Corp.: Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for
the petitioner duly assisted by Ms. Sheshadri Kumari and Mr.
Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing the
Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (henceforth for
Patna High Court CWJC No.3901 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
2/9
short ‘the BIADA’) duly assisted by Mr. Abu Nasar and Mr.
Aakash Singh beside Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned counsel
representing the Sugar Mill Corporation (henceforth for short
‘the Corporation’).
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the order dated
10.04.2024 passed by Additional Collector,
Gopalganj in Jamabandi Cancellation Case
No.539/2023-24 by which he has canceled the
long standing Jamabandi No. 104 running in the
name of deceased father of petitioner namely
Saral Choudhary in relation to raiyati lands of
thana No. 1060, Khata No. 135, Plot No.341,
345, 359, Khata No. 188, Plot No. 344 and
Khata No. 140, Plot No. 340 having its total
area 2 bigha 5 katha, Situated at Mauza
Badarjimi, Anchal Hathua, for which
Jamabandi.
(ii) for issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to produce
Patna High Court CWJC No.3901 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
3/9
records of so called land acquisition case in
which land of petitioner has been acquired and if
not so then they may be directed to initiate land
acquisition proceeding under Right to Fair
Compensation And Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act.
2013 for acquisition of the disputed land and pay
adequate compensation to petitioners for their
raiyati lands of thana No. 1060, Khata No. 135,
Plot No.341, 345, 359, Khata No. 188, Plot No.
344 and Khata No. 140, Plot No. 340 having its
total area 2 bigha 5 katha 6 dhur, Situated at
Mauza Badarjimi, Anchal Hathua, for which
Jamabandi No. 104 was running in the name of
deceased father of petitioner.
(iii) for issuance of writ in the nature
of certiorari for quashing the order dated
11.06.2024 (Annexure-P14) passed in Mutation
Case No. 205/2024-25 (filed by BIADA) in
respect to the land of petitioner since said order
has been passed behind the back of petitioner in
arbitrary manner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3901 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
4/9
(iv) for issuance of writ in the nature
of Mandamus directing the respondents to not
take force full possession or making any type of
construction over the raiyati land of petitioner of
Thana No. 1060, Khata No. 135, Plot No.341,
345, 359, Khata No. 188, Plot No. 344 and
Khata No. 140, Plot No.340 having its total area
2 bigha 5 katha 6 dhur, Situated at Mauza
Badarjimi, Anchal Hathua, for which Jamabandi
No. 104 was running in the name of deceased
father of petitioner.
(v) for any other writ/writs,
order/orders for which petitioners deemed
entitled to.”
3. The details of the land has been incorporated in
paragraph no.4 of the petitioner and read as follows:
“Than No.1060, Khata No.188, 140, 133
and 135, Plots No.344, 345, 340, 341 and 359
having its total area 2 bigha 5 kattha and 6
dhurs situated at Mauza Badarjimi, Anchal
Hathua for which Jamabandi No.104 was
running in the name of deceased father of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3901 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
5/9
petitioner.”
4. The claim of the petitioner is/are that the land in
question was purchased by his father, Saral Chaudhary between
1966 to 1969 and since then, he is having peaceful physical
possession over it. The contention is that ‘the BIADA’ preferred
Mutation Case No.1946 R27/2021-22 with respect to different
lands which included the lands of the petitioner also before the
Circle Officer, Hathwa, Gopalganj. This followed the order of
rejection by the Circle Officer, Hathwa, Gopalganj dated
01.06.2023 which was partly allowed after recording that so far
as the other plots are concerned, ‘the BIADA’ have to make
amends.
5. The contention is that one the one hand, the Circle
Officer, Hathwa, Gopalganj acknowledged the anomalies in the
mutation case preferred by ‘the BIADA’, side by side, he
recommended cancellation of the petitioner’s land by sending
appropriate proposal before the Additional Collector, Gopalganj
which led to to Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 539 of 2023-
24 (State of Bihar through Circle Officer, Hathwa vs. Ram
Ekbal Prasad Yadav) and after hearing the parties, the
Additional Collector, Gopalganj passed an order on 10.04.2024
by which after recording that the lands in question stand
Patna High Court CWJC No.3901 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
6/9
transferred to ‘the BIADA’ from SKG Distillery, the approval
was made for cancellation of Jamabandi (Annexure-P/1 to the
petition).
6. Aggrieved, the present writ petition.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the Circle
Officer, Hathwa acknowledging that there is no Jamabandi of
the SKG Distillery, a proposal for cancellation was made and
the Additional Collector, Gopalganj under wrong conclusion
recorded that two Jamabandis cannot run simultaneously and as
such, the order in question was passed. He submits that in
another case, after aggrieved by the order of the Additional
Collector, Gopalganj, one Ramchandra Rawat moved in
Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal Case No. 23 of 2024
(Ramchandra Rawat vs. the State of Bihar) which was disposed
of by the Collector, Gopalganj on 17.11.2025 and though he
acknowledged that the Additional Collector, Gopalganj came to
a wrong conclusion, only because CWJC No. 578 of 2025 (Om
Prakash Tiwari vs. The State of Bihar) is pending before this
Court, chose not to take the matter to its logical conclusion.
8. A copy of the said order has been provided by the
learned counsel for the petitioner which is kept on record. The
submission is that in that background, an interference is
Patna High Court CWJC No.3901 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
7/9
required.
9. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior Counsel is
representing ‘the BIADA’ and according to him, the land
originally belongs to the SKG Distillery and the same was
transferred finally to ‘the BIADA’ whereafter the prayer for
mutation was made. The contention of the petitioner is bereft of
any document save and except the sale deed and whether the
person executing it was legally entitled to the same or not is also
not clear. He further submits that the Additional Collector,
Gopalganj while passing the order concluded that if aggrieved,
the petitioner can avail the remedy of appeal which has not been
availed.
10. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that if the
petitioner prefers an appeal, all the documents including the
details of the transfer of land which included the land’s of the
petitioner will be put forward before the Collector, Gopalganj so
that a reasoned order could be passed.
11. Learned counsel representing ‘the Corporation’ on
the other hand also submits that they shall also be appearing
before the Collector, Gopalganj if the petitioner prefers appeal
and shall put forward their views so that the Collector,
Gopalganj can come to a conclusion.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3901 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
8/9
12. This Court has gone through the facts of the case
as also the first order of the Circle Officer, Hathwa wherein it
gave direction to ‘the BIADA’ to make amends. However, the
Additional Collector, Gopalganj on recommendation passed an
order on 10.04.2024 against which the appeal was not preferred
by the petitioner.
13. This Court has further taken note of the order
dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj wherein he
though came to the conclusion, chose not to pass an appropriate
reasoned order due to pendency of aforesaid CWJC No. 578 of
2025.
14. In that background, this Court is of the opinion
that when an appeal is preferred against the order of the
Additional Collector, Gopalganj, as in the present case, the
Collector, Gopalganj is duty bound to notice all the stakeholders
including ‘the BIADA’, ‘the Corporation’ as also the State and
after hearing the parties, shall pass a reasoned order on the merit
of the case. Further, the Collector, Gopalganj is duty bound to
direct the other side to bring on record the original document
which must have the details of the lands which were actually
transferred.
15. The petitioner undertakes to file a proper petition
Patna High Court CWJC No.3901 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
9/9
with supporting documents in next two weeks. Once the petition
is preferred within a period of two weeks, the Collector,
Gopalganj shall be taking steps, immediately, issuing notice to
all the stakeholders including ‘the BIADA’, the State
respondents as also ‘the Corporation’ and after hearing them,
shall be taking a decision within a period of three months
thereafter.
16. It is made clear that if the petitioner tries to delay
the process, the Collector, Gopalganj is well advised to record
the said fact, proceed and shall be taking the matter to its logical
conclusion within the time frame.
17. Till the Collector, Gopalganj passes the order, so
far as the land of the petitioner as detailed out above is
concerned, status quo as existing today shall be maintained.
18. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…