Patna High Court
Suresh Prasad Singh and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, directing the petitioners to raise all points before the Title Court.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers, filed a writ petition seeking to set aside a District Magistrate’s order directing the Superintendent of Police to provide security for compliance of a 2015 High Court order concerning land demarcation, and also asked the court to direct the respondents not to disturb their possession of the disputed land. The State counsel argued that a title suit (No. 39 of 2013) was pending and that the petitioners could raise their grievances there, and that the demarcation had been carried out in 2015 after notice was served to the petitioners, who chose to remain absent. The petitioners contended that the demarcation was done without their presence and that the pending title suit did not bar them from seeking relief. The court examined the counter‑affidavit and the notice dated 08‑07‑2015, finding that the petitioners had been duly notified and that the appropriate forum for the dispute was the title court. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed, with the court directing the petitioners to pursue all further reliefs before the title court. No substantive order was granted against the respondents.
Issues considered
- The pendency of Title Suit No. 39 of 2013 bars the petitioners from obtaining relief through a writ petition.
- Whether the demarcation of the land carried out in 2015, despite the petitioners’ absence, is valid.
- Whether the District Magistrate’s order directing police security can be set aside.
Subjects
- writ petition
- civil writ jurisdiction
- land demarcation
- title suit
- possession
- high court order
- district magistrate
- police security
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5958 of 2016
======================================================
1. Suresh Prasad Singh
2. Umesh Prasad Singh
3. Mahesh Prasad Singh All are sons of Late Dashrath Prasad Singh, resident
of Village- Babhan Bigha, Police Station- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura.
4. The Circle Officer, Barbigha, Sheikhpura.
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Barbigha Police Station, Sheikhpura.
6. Sohail Ahmad son of Late Hakim Abdul Saheb, resident of Mohalla-
Sharepur, Biharsharif, Police Station- Biharsharif, District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish Kumar No-2, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar- GP-08
For respondent no.06 : Mr. Ravindra Prasad Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned G.P.-08 as also Mr.
Ravindra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.06.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for setting aside the order dated 10.02.2016
passed by the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura
whereby and where under he has requested the
Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura to
provide adequate security for compliance of
order dated 09.06.2015 passed in Cr.W.J.C.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5958 of 2016(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/4
No. 578 of 2015 by the Hon'ble High Court;
(ii) for issuance of direction to the Respondent
Authorities to comply the order of the Hon'ble
High Court passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 578/2015
properly as per direction given by the Hon'ble
Court;
(iii) for issuance of a direction to the
Respondent to not the Authorities disturb
possession of the petitioners with respect to
the land bearing Khata No. 304, Khesra No.
798 at Mauza- Faizullahpur Koiribigha,
situated P.S. Barbigha, District Sheikhpura in
garb of the order 09.06.2015 passed in
Cr.W.J.C. No. 578 of 2015;
(iv) for directing the Circle Officer, Barbigha
to comply the order dated 09.06.2015
direction given by the Hon'ble Court in
Cr.W.J.C. No. 578 of 2015;
(v) and/or for any other relief or reliefs to
which the petitioners may be found entitled
encourse of hearing of this writ application.
3. At the outset, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned State
counsel has taken this Court to paragraph 22 of the writ petition to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5958 of 2016(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/4
show that the Title Suit No. 39 of 2013 is pending before a
competent Court of Sheikhpura and the petitioners have all the
time to put forward his point for the redressal of the grievance. He
further submits that so far as the security to the respondent no.06
is concerned, a perusal of Annexure-6 would show that the
Collector, Sheikhpur gave direction in the light of order passed in
the case of Sohail Ahmad vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.
(C.W.J.C. No. 578 of 2015). Learned State counsel has further
taken this Court to para-07 of the counter affidavit to show that the
demarcation has taken place in the year 2015 itself.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a
perusal of the paragraph would show that the presence of the
petitioners has not been shown there. He submits that the Title Suit
is pending, they shall be agitating the matter but if the demarcation
took place, his presence should have been there.
5. Though, Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 submits that the
said demarcation took place in his absence, learned State counsel
has taken this Court to Annexure-C/B of the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 duly served upon the
learned the learned counsel for the petitioners on 18.10.2016 to
show that vide letter no. 571 dated 08.07.2015, the petitioners
were issued notice and they have also acknowledged by putting
their respective signatures. However, they chose to remain absent
Patna High Court CWJC No.5958 of 2016(3) dt.09-02-2026
4/4
and that cannot be a ground of to say that in their absence, the
demarcation took place. He further submits that the petitioners
should instead approach Title Court.
6. It is to be noted that the counter affidavit is of the
year 2016, copy served to the petitioners not rebutted and as such
the contention of the learned State counsel has to be accepted.
7. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of
allowing the petitioners to put forward/raise all the points before
the Title Court by filing an appropriate petition, if they want any
further development in the matter relating to the demarcation.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…