Patna High Court
Yamuna SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the authority within four weeks and ordering that the limitation petition be considered in view of the writ’s pendency.
Summary
Yamuna Singh filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 13-12-2025 issued by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms that rejected his rent‑fixation case under Rule‑53(2)(i)(d)(f) of the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Rules, 2018. He sought to set aside that order and directed the respondents to follow the Bihar Tenancy Rules and a prior judgment of 17‑07‑1989 and decree of 25‑09‑1989 in Title Suit No. 97/2075 concerning rent fixation. The State counsel indicated that any further petition would be pursued to its logical conclusion. The Court, after hearing both sides, disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within four weeks and stating that the limitation petition would be considered given the writ’s pendency. No substantive merits of the rent‑fixation dispute were decided, and the matter was left for further administrative or appellate proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the rent‑fixation case under Rule‑53(2)(i)(d)(f) of the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Rules, 2018 is legally valid.
- Whether the respondents complied with the procedural requirements of the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Rules, 2018 and the earlier judgment/decree on rent fixation.
- Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal can be condoned owing to the pendency of the writ petition.
Subjects
- rent fixation
- tenancy law
- limitation period
- writ petition
- Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Rules, 2018
- administrative authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5610 of 2026
======================================================
Yamuna Singh S/o Late Bahadur Singh, R/o Village-Chakanwa, P.O. and P.S.-
Indrapuri, District-Rohtas (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
2. The District Magistrate cum College, Rohtas at Sasaram, District-Rohtas.
3. The Additional District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, District-Rohtas.
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dehri, District-Rohtas.
5. The Circle Officer, Tilauthu Block, P.S.-Tilauthu, District-Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 Heard Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(i) Setting aside the order as
contained in Letter No.-618 dt.-13.12.2025
purported to have been signed & issued by the
Resp. No.-4 whereby & whereunder the Rent
Fixation Case No.-02/2025-2026 has been
rejected in pursuance to the provisions of Rule-53
(2), (i), (d), (f) of the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment)
Patna High Court CWJC No.5610 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
Rules, 2018.
(ii) Commanding the respondent
authorities particularly the Resp. No.-4 & 5 to
follow with the provisions of Bihar Tenancy
(Amendment) Rules, 2018 for fixation of rent in
light of judgment dt.-17.07.89 & the decree dt.-
25.09.1989 in connection with Title Suit No.-
97/2075 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III,
Rohtas at Sasaram.
(iii) Grant of any other consequential
or incidental relief/reliefs, for which the
petitioner can be found entitled for.”
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he shall be challenging the said order
by filing an appropriate appeal but due to pendency of the writ
petition, the delay has occurred.
4. Learned State counsel submits that if any petition
is filed, it will be taken to its logical conclusion.
5. In that background, the writ petition stands
disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner approaches
the concerned authority within a period of four weeks from
today, the limitation petition shall be considered in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5610 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
backdrop of the fact that the writ petition was pending before
this Court.
6. Needless to add, after noticing/hearing the
parties, the matter shall be taken to its logical conclusion at an
earliest.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…