Dinesh Kumar GuptaversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5930 of 2022
                 ======================================================
           1.     Dinesh Kumar Gupta Son of Sri Raghunath Prasad Gupta, resident of
                  Jainagar Towan ward no. - 01, Bhelwa Tola, P.S. and Anchal - Jainagar,
                  District - Madhubani.
           2.    Mohd. Sharif Ansari Son of Late Kamruddin Ansari resident of ward no. - 8,
                 Near Masjid Village- Sirahi, P.O.- Chhatauni P.S. - Basopatti, Distt. -
                 Madhubani.

                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through the Collector, Madhubani.
           2.    The Bihar Land Tribunal ,Patna through its Registrar, Off Polo Road, Patna.
           3.    The Collector of the District (District Magistrate) Madhubani.
           4.    The Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) Jainagar, Madhubani.
           5.    The Circle Officer, Jainagar, Madhubani.
           6.    Sadara Khatoon Wife of Mohd. Safiq Mian, water ways chowk, Jainagar
                 ward no. - 12 P.S. and Anchal -Jainagar, District- Madhubani- 847226.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :       Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam ( AAG 12 )
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   26-03-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   AC to AAG-12. However, no one appears on behalf of the

                   private respondent no. 6.

                               2. The present writ application has been filed for grant

                   of the following relief(s):-

                                            “(i) Directing the respondents 1st party to protect
                                the right, interest and possession of the petitioners over the
                                lands in question as the respondent 2nd party is forcefully
                                trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question
                                on the basis of a fraud and fabricated Basgit parcha (Annx-
                                1).
Patna High Court CWJC No.5930 of 2022(5) dt.26-03-2026
                                            2/4




                                    (ii) Holding and declaring that the so-called
                        Basgit parcha (Annx-1), issued in favour of the Respondent
                        2nd party in the alleged Basgit Parcha Case No. 19 of 2004-
                        05 is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes
                        of law, as no record is available in the government record
                        with respect to the said Parcha.
                                    (iii) Directing, alternatively, the Respondent no.3
                        (Collector) to dispose of the pending revision application
                        (Md. Sharif Ansari & another Vs. The state of Bihar &
                        another) as contained in Annx.-8 hereto, at the earliest, as the
                        same has been filed by the present petitioners in the year
                        Nov.2018 itself under section 21 of Bihar Privileged persons
                        Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as
                        B.P.P.H.T. Act) against the issuance of the so-called Basgit
                        Parcha (Annx-1) in favour of the Respondent 2nd party.
                                    (iv) Holding and declaring that the Respondent
                        2nd party is not the privileged person under the Bihar
                        Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, and the
                        so-called Basgit parcha (Annx-1) as claimed by her, is
                        apparently collusive, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the
                        scope and provisions laid down under B.P.P.H.T. Act.
                                    (v)     Restraining    the     respondents      from
                        dispossessing the petitioners from the lands in question
                        and/or from taking any step which would ultimately cause
                        prejudice to the rights, title. interests and possession of the
                        petitioners over the lands in question.
                                    (vi) Holding and declaring that the Learned
                        Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna ought to have
                        interfered into the matter and ought to have quashed the so-
                        called Basgit Parcha (Annx-1), which is said to have been
                        issued in favour of the Respondent 2 nd party.”


                      3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

          petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that peaceful possession of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5930 of 2022(5) dt.26-03-2026
                                            3/4




          the petitioners over the land is being disturbed as the petitioners

          are being dispossessed forcefully from the said land on the basis

          of fabricated Basgit Parcha and it has been submitted that the

          petitioners have preferred a revision application before the

          respondent no. 3 i.e. the Collector, Madhubani in the year 2018

          bearing Case No. 309 of 2018-19. However, till date the same is

          pending and no order has been passed by the Collector,

          Madhubani while respondent no. 6, the so called Paracha Holder

          is creating disturbances on the peaceful possession over the land

          in question.

                      4. Learned AC to AAG 12 submits that since the

          revision application is already pending, the case may be

          disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3, the

          Collector, Madhubani to hear the revision application preferred

          by the petitioners and the points being raised by the petitioners

          in the present writ application shall be considered by him.

                      5. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the parties,

          this Court thinks it appropriate that the present writ application be

          disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3, Collector,

          Madhubani to hear the pending revision application bearing

          Application No. 309 of 2018-19 in the presence of the parties

          including the petitioners and the private respondent no. 6 and the

          grievances being raised in the present writ application shall also be
            Patna High Court CWJC No.5930 of 2022(5) dt.26-03-2026
                                                        4/4




                      redressed by the Collector, Madhubani.

                                  6. Accordingly, the writ application stands disposed of

                      with the liberty to the petitioners to file entire facts once again

                      through a supplementary affidavit and the Collector, Madhubani

                      is directed to hear and decide the revision application preferred

                      by the petitioners within a period of three months from the

                      receipt/ production of a copy of this order.



                                              (Sourendra Pandey, J)
khushbu/-

U