Patna High Court
Rana Ranjeet YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court declined to quash the District Magistrate's order and disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek relief through the Collector or the pending civil suit.
Summary
Petitioner Rana Ranjeet Yadav, owner of private raiiti land in Saharsa, challenged an order dated 24-11-2025 issued by the District Magistrate directing the removal of alleged encroachments and handing over the land to a private individual, Umakant Malakar. The petitioner claimed the order was illegal and sought its quash, contending that a Title Suit (No. 228 of 2012) concerning the same land was already pending before the civil court. The State argued that the action was taken on Malakar's petition, who was not a party to the writ petition, and that the civil suit provided the appropriate forum for dispute resolution. The High Court held that, in the absence of the interested third party (Malakar), it could not issue any direction and directed the petitioner to approach the Collector for appropriate relief or raise the matter in the pending civil suit. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that any further development would depend on the final order of the competent authorities or court.
Issues considered
- What is the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash an administrative order when a civil suit concerning the same land is pending?
- Can the court issue a direction against the District Magistrate's order in the absence of the private individual (Umakant Malakar) who is the purported beneficiary of the order?
- Is the petitioner required to approach the Collector or the civil court to obtain relief instead of seeking a writ remedy?
Subjects
- writ petition
- encroachment
- land dispute
- pending civil suit
- administrative order
- jurisdiction
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4682 of 2026
======================================================
Rana Ranjeet Yadav Son of Sunil Prasad Yadav @ Sulin Prasad Yadav,
Resident of Village- Kanp, P.S.- Sour Nagar, District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reform Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District magistrate, Saharsa.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Saharsa.
5. Officer in-Charge Sour Bazar P.S. Saharsa.
6. Circle Officer Sour Bazar, Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priya Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (07)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for issuance of an appropriate writ/
writ(s)/direction(s)/ order(s) for quashing the order
dated 24.11.2025 contained in Memo No. 3605-2
issued by District Magistrate, Saharsa by which the
District Magistrate has directed the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sadar, Saharsa to depute Magistrate for
removal of encroachment from the private Raiti land
Patna High Court CWJC No.4682 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/3
of the petitioner which is situated at Mauza Kanp,
P.S. Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa at different Plots
measuring 5 Bigha 15 Katha 12 ) Dhur to hand over
with a purpose to the possession to a different
person namely Umakant Malakar on his application
which is totally bad, illegal and further for a
direction to the respondent authorities not to disturb
the possession of the petitioner from the abovesaid
land or from cultivating the said land for any other
relief for which the petitioner found entitled to.”
3. The matter relates to certain lands of the petitioner
which found incorporated in paragraph-5 of the writ petition.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the fight
is with a private individual and the Title Suit No. 228 of 2012 is
already pending before a competent Civil Court, Saharsa but in
the meantime, the Collector, Saharsa took up the matter for
dispossessing the petitioner in the garb of encroachment and as
such, appropriate interference is required from this Court.
5. Learned State counsel objects to the said submission
and submits that the action of the concerned respondent took place
on the petition of one Umakant Malakar who has not been made
party-respondent in the present case. The submission is that in any
case, Title Suit No. 228 of 2012 is pending before a competent
Patna High Court CWJC No.4682 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
3/3
Civil Court where the petitioner can raise all the points which is
part of the writ petition.
6. This Court is in conformity with the submission put
forward by the learned State counsel. In the absence of Umakant
Malakar, no direction can be issued. Further, Title Suit No. 228 of
2012 is pending whereby filing an appropriate petition, the
petitioner can agitate the matter. Alternatively, since the Collector
has proceeded in the matter, liberty is given to the petitioner to
approach respondent no. 2, the Collector, Saharsa by filing an
appropriate petition who will be duty bound to issue notice to all
the aggrieved party and pass an appropriate reasoned order
thereafter.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation.
8. Any development that will take place shall be subject
to the final outcome of the order passed by the
authorities/competent Court.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…