Patna High Court
Mantu Chandra DasversusThe 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.
Summary
Petitioner Mantu Chandra Das alleged that a private respondent was forcibly constructing a road over his private land in West Champaran, Bihar, and sought various writs including mandamus to restrain the construction, to direct land acquisition with fair compensation, and to impose penalties for illegal acts. He also requested that the respondent be restrained from further construction during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner’s counsel indicated an intention to approach the appropriate authorities for redress. The Court, without addressing the merits, granted the petitioner liberty to approach the relevant authority and disposed of the writ petition. No substantive order was issued regarding the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, should the Court grant to restrain the alleged encroachment and compel land acquisition with compensation?
Subjects
- land acquisition
- encroachment
- mandamus
- writ petition
- private land
- compensation
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.639 of 2026
======================================================
Mantu Chandra Das Son of-Late Tarakanth Das, Resident of village- Ward
No. 10, Harpurwa Bangali Colony, Police Station- Yogapatti, District- West
Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land Reform and
Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Land Reform and Revenue Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Trihut Division Land Reform and Revenue
Department, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Range, Bettiah, West
Champaran.
5. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran.
6. The Additional Collector, Bettiah, West Champaran.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran.
8. The Circle Officer, Yogapatti, West Champaran.
9. The Officer-In-charge cum S.H.O., Yogapatti, Bettiah, West Champaran.
10. Amerika Yadav, Son of- Late Tilakdhari Yadav, Resident of village-
Mahavirpur, P.S.- Yogapatti, District- West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel-13
: Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, AC to SC-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of an appropriate
writ/s, order/s, direction/s in the nature of
mandamus commanding the Respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.639 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
Authorities for restraining the Private
Respondent to forcibly Pakka Construction over
the private land of the petitioner situated under
Mauja- Bagahi Tola Harpurwa, Thana No. 49,
Khata No. 57, Khesra No. 103 Rakba
admeasuring 3.61 Dismal and From Khata No.
405(old), Keshra No. 199(old) .64 Dismal total
Rakba 4.25 Dismal which has been trying to
encroach by Private Respondent.
(ii) for issuance of an appropriate
writ/s, order/s, direction/s in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing to the
Respondents to initiate a valid proceeding of
land acquisition for purpose of land acquiring
the land of the petitioner, so that fair
compensation should be pay to the petitioner.
(iii) for that during pendency of
aforesaid writ application may kindly restrain
the Respondent No. 10 to not construct Pakka
Construction/Public road over the private land
of the petitioner.
(iv) for that to impose a penalty over
Patna High Court CWJC No.639 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
the Respondent to their willful illegal act against
the rule of law.
(v) to pass such other order/orders as
your lordships may deem fit and proper in facts
and circumstances of the case.”
3. After some argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he will be approaching the appropriate
authority (including respondent no.7) for the redressal of the
grievance.
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…