Patna High Court
Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable and the dispute should be resolved through civil proceedings or mediation.
Summary
Petitioners Pintu Kumar and Gauri Sanker Kumar filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13-12-2025 passed by the Additional Collector, Gaya, which directed them to present documents for a land parcel (RS Plot No.724). They claimed ownership of the land, having purchased it from their family member Rajali Devi, who allegedly sold it to private respondents Sanjeet and Sanjeev Kumar Singh. The petition sought quashing of the order, restraining interference with possession, and other reliefs. The Court observed that the dispute is essentially a civil matter concerning title and possession, suitable for resolution by mediation or a civil suit to declare the sale deed void. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Additional Collector directing the petitioners to present documents can be quashed by a writ petition.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to restrain the private respondents from interfering with their possession of the land.
- Whether the writ jurisdiction is appropriate for adjudicating the dispute over land title and possession.
Subjects
- land dispute
- mutation revision
- writ petition
- civil remedy
- property title
- mediation
- court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.555 of 2026
======================================================
1. Pintu Kumar
2. Gauri Sanker Kumar,
Both are Sons of Satyendra Prasad @ Satyendra Yadav @ Satyendra Kumar,
Resident of Village-Bahwalpur, P.O.-Takya Karpi, Hulashganj, PS-Mahkar,
District-Gaya at Present resident of Village-Dhansingra Tola, Khokhnachak,
P.O.-Dhansingra, P.S.-Mahkar, District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its The Principal Secretary Revenue Department,
Patna, Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The Additional District Magistrate, Land Reforms, Gaya.
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Neemchak Bathani.
5. The DCLR, Neemchak Bathani.
6. The Circle Officer, Khizarsarai.
7. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Son of Late Rajnandan Yadav, Resident of Village-
Shyam Nagar, Post Office-Dhansingra, Police Station -Mahkar, District-
Gaya.
8. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Son of Late Rajnandan Yadav, Resident of Village-
Shyam Nagar, Post Office-Dhansingra, Police Station-Mahkar, District-
Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prakash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC 25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ram Prakash Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sajid Salim
Khan, learned SC 25 for the State.
2. Petitioners have inter alia prayed for following
reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-
“I. For quashing the order dated 13.12.2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.555 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/3
passed by the Court of Additional Collector, Gaya in
Mutation Revision No.04/2024-25 Sanjeet Kumar Singh &
Others Versus LRDC Neemchak Bathani & Others Pintu
Kumar & Gauri Sanker Kumar, both are son of Satyendra
Prasad @ Satyendra Yadav @ Satyendra Kumar by which
the petitioners and other have been directed to present
along with documents for the land of RS Plot No.724 under
RS Khata No.105 Area 1.11 Acre of Mauza Dhan Singhara
Thana No.25 Anchal Khizarsarai District Gaya.
II. For restraining the respondents including the
private respondents from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the petitioners and/or his family members
over the land in question.
III. For any relief(s) for which the petitioners
are deemed to be entitled in the eye of law.”
3. Considering the nature of relief as sought for in the
present writ petition and considering the fact that petitioners
have claimed that they have been deprived of their rightful
possession and title over the property in question, having
purchased from the vendor / Rajali Devi, who is own family
member of the petitioners and subsequently, according to the
petitioners, she has sold the land to the private respondents no.7
and 8 and the said Rajali Devi having not been made party in
the present writ petition, I find that the petitioners can either
resolve their dispute amicably by way of mediation or in
alternative, can also avail remedy before competent civil court
having jurisdiction to get the registered sale deed declared void,
by which they are aggrieved.
4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
5. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands
Patna High Court CWJC No.555 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U
Checking your session…