Patna High Court
Bijay Prasad SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the merits, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate authority for relief.
Summary
Petitioner Bijay Prasad Sah filed a writ petition seeking an order directing police officials (respondents 7 and 8) to enforce a Sub‑Divisional Officer's directive preventing the illegal construction of a wall on his raiyati land, and also requested protection against alleged disturbance by respondents 9‑12. The petitioner alleged that the second‑party respondents were forcibly attempting to build the wall. The court, after hearing counsel, granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate authority or court for redress, but did not examine the merits of the allegations. No substantive direction was issued against the respondents. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any substantive order.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ directing police officers to enforce a Sub‑Divisional Officer's order to prevent illegal construction on raiyati land
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection against alleged disturbance by the other respondents
Subjects
- civil writ jurisdiction
- illegal construction
- rai yati land
- police duty
- protection of possession
- sub‑divisional officer order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6316 of 2024
======================================================
Bijay Prasad Sah son of Devendra Prasad Sah, resident of Mahalla-Mirjanhat
Road, Police Station-Babarganj, District-Bhagalpur-812005.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.
4. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
5. Senior Deputy Collector, District Public Grievance Cell, Bhagalpur.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur.
7. The Anchal Adhikari, Jagdishpur, Police Staltion-Jagdishpur, District-
Bhagalpur.
8. The S.H.O. Babarganj Police Station, District-Bhagalpur.
9. Ved Prakash Gupta, son of Late Jwala Prasad, resident of Mohaddinagar,
Police Station-Babarganj, District-Bhagalpur.
10. Subodh Sah, son of Bodhu Sah, resident of Mohaddinagar, Police Station-
Babarganj, District-Bhagalpur.
11. Pinku Modi, son of Bileshwar Modi, resident of Mohaddinagar, Police
Station-Babarganj, District-Bhagalpur.
12. Anchala Devi, W/o Pinku Modi, resident of Mohaddinagar, Police Station-
Babarganj, District-Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Sweety Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Kshem Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Government Pleader (27)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 30-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“for issuance of an appropriate
writ/order/direction upon the concerned
Patna High Court CWJC No.6316 of 2024(2) dt.30-03-2026
2/2
respondents especially upon respondent no. 7
and 8, the Anchaladhikari, Jagdishpur and
S.H.O. Babarganj Police Station respectively to
comply the order and direction of learned Sub-
Divisional Officer, Sadar Bhagalpur contained
in Letter No. 3935 dated 22.09.2023 so that
there may not be any untowards happening at
the hands of respondents 2nd party who are
adamant to make illegal construction of wall on
the raiyati land of the petitioner forcibly. The
petitioner further prays to provide proper
protection to the petitioner so that respondents
2nd party may not construct illegal wall on the
raiyati land of the petitioner.”
3. After some argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he shall be approaching the appropriate
authority/court for the redressal of the grievances as the the
respondent nos. 9 to 12 are disturbing the peaceful physical
possession.
4. Granting said liberty and without commenting on
the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…