Patna High Court
Hawaldar Singh and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the status‑quo with respect to the disputed land shall be maintained until the revision petition is disposed of.
Summary
The petitioners, Hawaldar Singh and his sons, claimed ownership of a 0.73‑decimal raiyati land parcel in Ramgarh, Kaimur, which the State of Bihar also asserted as its own. The land was recorded in the petitioners' name by the Consolidation Officer, but the State appealed, and after a series of consolidation cases and appeals, the Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld the petitioners' title in 2018. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking an injunction to prevent the State from digging a pond on the land, alleging that the State was delaying the implementation of the 2018 order. The State later filed a Chakbandi Revision Petition (No. 123 of 2025) only after the High Court’s direction, and failed to appear in subsequent hearings. The Court observed the State’s delay, noted that the 2018 order remained unchallenged until recently, and ordered that the status‑quo be maintained pending disposal of the revision petition, directing the revisional authority to conclude the matter promptly.
Issues considered
- Whether the status‑quo regarding the disputed raiyati land should be maintained pending the disposal of the State’s revision petition.
- Whether the State’s delayed filing of a revision petition defeats the petitioners’ right to an injunction against digging the pond.
Subjects
- raiayati land
- land consolidation
- revision petition
- status quo
- writ petition
- land acquisition
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6044 of 2017
======================================================
1. Hawaldar Singh S/o Late Barhu Singh
2. Baban Singh
3. Lalan Singh Both Sons of Late Telhu Singh All R/o VillageP.O. P.S.
Ramgarh, District Kaimur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. District Magistrate, Kaimur Bhabhua.
3. District Programme Officer, Kaimur Bhabua.
4. Additional Collector, Kaimur Bhabhua.
5. S.D.O. Mohania, Kaimur Bhabhua.
6. D.C.L.R. Barh, District Patna.
7. Block Development Officer, Belchhi, P.S. Belchhi, District Patna.
8. Anchal Adhikari, Ramgarh, Kaimur Bhabhua.
9. Thanadhyaksh, Ramgarh, Kaimur Bhabhua.
10. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District Kaimur
Bhabhua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan -SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
6 06-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for issuance of a writ / order /
directions to the respondents not to dig Pokhar in
R.S. Plot no. 166 appertaining to R.s. Khata no.
346 area 73 dec. which is situate in Village
Patna High Court CWJC No.6044 of 2017(6) dt.06-01-2026
2/5
Ramgarh, P.s. Ramgarh, Revenue P.s. no. 214,
District Kaimur as same is his raiyati land which is
the source of their livelihood and as yet not a
single inch of the aforesaid plot has been acquired
by the State of Bihar till date.”
3. This case is a best example of how the State
Government Officials functions on ground zero.
4. The petitioner claims to own a piece of land [(R.S.
Plot No. 166, Khata No. 346 (area 0.73 decimal) in the village
and circle – Ramgarh in the district of Kaimur]. The matter
went before the Consolidation Officer, Rohtas (now Kaimur)
wherein it was recorded in the name of the petitioner no. 1,
Hawaldar Singh. The State of Bihar claimed it as its own land
and after the order passed by the Consolidation Officer,
Ramgarh dated 16.05.1988 in Consolidation Case No.
397/1986-87, Consolidation Appeal No. 708/1988-89 was
preferred. It was dismissed in the year 1992.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Consolidation Case No. 24/2013-14 was preferred which came
to be disposed of on 19.10.2016. The State thereafter went in
appeal in Consolidation Appeal No. 64 of 2017-18 before the
learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas and Kaimur
Patna High Court CWJC No.6044 of 2017(6) dt.06-01-2026
3/5
at Sasaram which came to be dismissed on 12.06.2018
(Annexure-P/7).
6. The Deputy Director, Consolidation held that the
disputed land is a raiyati one of the petitioners having their
peaceful physical possession as informed by the Consolidation
Officer/Circle Officer, Ramgarh.
7. The facts were placed before this Court firstly on
03.11.2025 and in continuation on 09.12.2025 and in that
background, the Court wanted the respondents to file reply as
to:
“(i) whether the order of the Deputy Director,
Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram in Consolidation
Appeal No. 64 of 2017-18 (State of Bihar vs. Hawaldar
Singh & Ors.) has been challenged or not;
(ii) if the same has not been challenged, the
steps that the State intends to take.”
8. After two adjournments, finally the State
Government has come with the affidavit, according to which,
they have preferred Chakbandi Revision Case No. 123 of 2025
(after the orders passed by this Court), seven years later, before
the Court of Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna (Annexure-
A to the petition). Learned counsel for the petitioners submit
Patna High Court CWJC No.6044 of 2017(6) dt.06-01-2026
4/5
that it is only to delay the process and to prevent the petitioners
from allowing the fruits of the order passed by the appellate
Court.
9. The further submission is that after filing the
Revision Petition, the State is not appearing and only delaying
the proceeding.
10. Learned State counsel submits that now that the
revision petition has been filed, they shall be taking it up
diligently and shall ensure that without unnecessary delay, the
same comes to a logical conclusion.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
since they have delayed filing of the revision and an appellate
order has come in their favour in the year 2018 itself, status quo
as existing today be allowed till the revision petition is disposed
of.
12. The submission seems to be justified, the State
cannot ignore that an order came to be passed in the year 2018.
They chose not to challenge the same/file any revision petition
and it was only after the nudge of this Court on 03.11.2025 that
they wake up from the deep slumber and have now filed
revision petition and as per the learned counsel for the
petitioner, are not even appearing.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6044 of 2017(6) dt.06-01-2026
5/5
13. In that background, till the pendency of the
Revision Petition (Chakbandi Revision Case No. 123 of 2025),
the status quo with regard to the land in question shall be
maintained.
14. The writ petition stands disposed of directing the
Revisional Authority to take up the matter (Revision petition) to
its logical conclusion at an earliest.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…