Patna High Court
Sudarshan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners must first approach the appropriate senior revenue authority, and therefore the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, three landowners from Kataha Janpur, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a memo dated 16‑01‑2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Barun, alleging that the officer acted beyond his jurisdiction by restoring the mutation status of a private respondent and misinterpreting orders of higher revenue authorities. The State argued that such a grievance must be raised before the appropriate senior revenue authority, not the High Court. The petitioners agreed to approach the concerned senior authority. The Court, after hearing counsel, granted the petitioners liberty to pursue the matter before the senior revenue authority and consequently dismissed the writ petition. The petition was therefore disposed without any substantive order against the Circle Officer.
Issues considered
- Did the Circle Officer act beyond his jurisdiction in restoring the mutation status of the private respondent?
- Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable for challenging the Circle Officer’s order, or must the grievance be pursued before a senior revenue authority?
- Whether the order dated 16‑01‑2025 is illegal and arbitrary warranting quashment?
Subjects
- mutation
- land revenue
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- circle officer
- senior revenue authority
- illegal and arbitrary order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4489 of 2026
======================================================
1. Sudarshan Kumar Son of Late Rameshwar Singh, Resident of Village
Kataha Janpur, P.S.- Barun, Distt- Aurangabad.
2. Manoj Kumar Singh, Son of Damodar Singh, Resident of Village Kataha
Janpur, P.S.- Barun, Distt- Aurangabad.
3. Shambhu Singh, Son of Late Bhagat Singh, Resident of Village Kataha
Janpur, P.S.- Barun, Distt- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Land and
Revenue, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
3. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad.
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad.
5. The Circle Officer, Barun Circle, P.S.- Barun, Distt- Aurangabad.
6. The Halka Karmchari / Revenue Clerk, Barun Circle, P.S.- Barun, Distt.
Aurangabad.
7. Manikraj Kunwar, Wife of Late Tek Bahadur Singh, Resident of Village-
Kataha Janpur, P.S.- Barun, Distt- Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 Heard Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“for quashing the order issued vide memo
no. 110 dated 16/01/2025 passed by the Circle
Officer, Barun, Distt. Aurangabad whereby and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4489 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/2
where under he acted beyond his jurisdiction
and has restored the mutation status of the
private respondent by misinterpreting the order
of appellate as well as revisional authority and
has acted in illegal and arbitrary manner.”
3. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that the
petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Circle Officer,
Barun (memo no. 110 dated 16.01.2025) which can be agitated
before an appropriate Senior Revenue Authority.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners
submit that they shall be approaching the concerned authority.
5. Granting said liberty, the writ petition is disposed
of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…