Patna High Court
Daulati DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Deputy Collector exceeded his jurisdiction and the orders dated 20‑11‑2024 and 17‑01‑2025 are quashed.
Summary
Daulati Devi and Gudiya Kumari filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17‑01‑2025 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Arwal, which directed the police to vacate their raiyati land and hand it over to Sanjay Sudhi, who claimed tenancy rights. The petitioners argued that the Deputy Collector acted beyond his jurisdiction under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009, which applies only to settled or allotted land. The High Court observed that the land in question is raiyati, not settled, and therefore the 2009 Act does not govern the dispute. Consequently, the Court held that the Deputy Collector exceeded his authority and quashed the orders dated 20‑11‑2024 and 17‑01‑2025. The petition was disposed, with the parties directed to approach the competent civil court for any further remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Arwal had jurisdiction under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 to pass an order for vacating raiyati land.
- Whether the order dated 17‑01‑2025 directing possession to the respondent is liable to be set aside by certiorari.
Subjects
- raiayti land
- jurisdiction
- Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act
- certiorari
- land possession
- settlement
- unauthorised dispossession
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4111 of 2025
======================================================
1. Daulati Devi Wife of Ram Janam Saw @ Ram Prawesh Saw, Resident of
Village Muradpur Hujra, Post office- Baidrabad, Police Station- Arwal,
District- Arwal, Bihar.
2. Gudiya Kumari Daughter of Ram Janam Saw @ Ram Prawesh Saw,
Resident of Village Muradpur Hujra, Post office- Baidrabad, Police Station-
Arwal, District- Arwal, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Arwal.
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Arwal.
4. The Circle Inspector, Arwal.
5. The Officer-In-Charge, Police Station- Arwal, District- Arwal.
6. Sanjay Sudhi Son of Late Ishwar Dayal Sudhi, Resident of Village
Muradpur Hujra, Post Baidrabad, Police Station- Arwal, Block, Arwal,
District- Arwal, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abu Nasar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC 3
For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 24-03-2026 Heard Mr. Abu Nasar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Parth Gaurav, learned counsel representing the
respondent no. 6 and Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC 3.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for
grant of the followed reliefs:
i. for issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari to set aside the order dated 17.01.2025
by which the Ld. Court of Land Reforms Deputy
Collector allowed the Case No. 63/2024-25 filed
Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
2/7
under Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009
filed by the Respondent No. 6 and directed the
Circle Officer, Arwal and Incharge Officer, Arwal
Police Station to vacate the house of the
petitioners within a period of one month and give
the possession to the Respondent No. 6.
ii. for issuance of appropriate direction
to stay the operation of the order dated
17.01.2025 and direct the respondents herein to
not take any coercive step in light of the said
order.
iii. for any other relief(s) that this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate.”
3. The matter relates to a piece of land having
following details:
“ Khata No.- 40
Plot No.- 437
Mauza- Muradpur Hajra
Thana- 80
Police Station & Block Arwal, District- Arwal
(Area 2 decimal)
4. Admittedly, it is a raiyati land on which the
respondent no. 6 has laid his claim. As would manifest, the
respondent no. 6 moved before the Court of learned Deputy
Collector, Land Reforms, Arwal under Bihar Land Disputes
Resolution Act, 2009 (for short, 2009 Act) which led to
Miscellaneous Case No. 63/2024-25 (Sanjay Sudhi Vs. Daulati
Devi and Ors.).
5. His claim was that as a tenant, the lady entered but
Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
3/7
is now staking claim on it and as such, be removed from the said
land.
6. The petitioners were noticed and thereafter vide an
order dated 17.01.2025 and after hearing the parties, setting
aside the contention/ preliminary objection that it is raiyati land,
the Court cannot hear the case (as the land has not been received
by the respondent no. 2 through any settlement), an order was
passed with a direction to the Revenue Authorities /Police
Officials to ensure that the land stands vacated and handed over
to the respondent no. 6.
7. Aggrieved the present writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
aforesaid act of D.C.L.R., Arwal is in teeth of the Bihar Land
Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 (henceforth for short ‘the 2009
Act’) and the orders passed by this Court particularly in the case
of Basudev Saw & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC
No. 9536 of 2022) disposed of on 29.03.2023 as also in the case
of Akhilesh Singh vs. The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 17154 of
2022) disposed of on 01.04.2024. He has taken this Court to
paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the order passed in Akhilesh
Singh (supra) which reads as under:-
“16. This Court will like to
incorporate Section 4 of the 2009 Act which
Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
4/7
read as follows:
4. Jurisdiction and authority to
resolve disputes- (I) 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:-
Unauthorised and unlawful dispossession of
any settlee or allottee from any land or part
thereof, settled with or allotted to him for under
any Ad or Policy of the State or Central
Government providing for settlement of
government land to the persons of any specified
category under any Act contained in Schedule-1
to this Act by issuance of any settlemen
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;
(c) Threatened dispossession of a
legally entitled settlee /allottee:
(d) Any of the matters enumerated in
(a), (b) and (c) above appertainings raiyati
land;
(e) Partition of land holding;
(f) Correction of entry made in the
Record of Rights including map/survey mag
Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
5/7
(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 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)
Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
6/7
hereinabove, 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 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.”
17. A perusal of the said section
would clearly show that it is restricted to the
settlee or the allottee of a land where there is
unauthorized unlawful dispossession as also
relating to restoration of possession of
settled/allotted land.
9. The respondent no. 6 has appeared and though the
counter affidavit has been filed and the grievance is that the
petitioners entered as a tenant and now they are trying to usurp
the entire land, candidly admits that in view of ‘the 2009 Act’, it
been a raiyati land, the D.C.L.R., Arwal exceeded his
jurisdiction.
10. As usual, the State respondents failed to file any
affidavit despite the matter being adjourned earlier.
11. Having heard the parties, in the opinion of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
7/7
Court, when the parties are in agreement that it is not a settled
land rather a raiyati land, naturally ‘the 2009 Act’ is not
applicable in the present case.
12. This Court has further taken note of the orders
passed by Patna High Court in earlier cases especially, in
Akhilesh Singh (supra) case and is of the considered view that
D.C.L.R., Arwal certainly exceeded his jurisdiction in passing
the order in question.
13.Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2024 and the
order dated 17.01.2025 stands quashed.
14. The parties including respondent no. 6 are free to
take steps for redressal of the grievance by approaching the
Competent Civil Court as this Court has taken note of the claim
of the respondent no. 6 that despite he being the absolute owner
of the land in question and only tenancy right was given to the
petitioners who are now illegally claiming title over the land.
15. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ranjeet/-
U
Checking your session…