Patna High Court
Sanjeev KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner must pursue the statutory and civil remedies available under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 and the pending civil proceedings.
Summary
Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a direction to restrain private respondents (Nos. 8‑10) from disturbing his possession and constructing on land at Survey Plots 667‑668, Patna. The land was originally transferred to his mother in 1978, with mutation recorded in her name in 1993, but a title suit filed in 1986 was dismissed in default after the petitioner's parents died. The petitioner later sought restoration of the title suit and filed a jamabandi cancellation case (No. 183 of 2022‑23) before the Additional Collector, while the respondents obtained a mutation in their favour. The State argued that the petitioner has statutory remedies under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has adequate civil and administrative remedies, and disposed the application, directing the petitioner to pursue those remedies, including filing a petition under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of prohibition or injunction can be issued to restrain private parties in a land dispute when statutory and civil remedies are available.
- Whether the petitioner must pursue the remedy under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 and the pending civil proceedings instead of the writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the pending jamabandi cancellation and title suit restoration proceedings.
Subjects
- land dispute
- possession
- mutation
- jamabandi
- title suit
- civil writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act
- statutory remedy
- injunction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.656 of 2026
======================================================
Sanjeev Kumar Son of Late Krishnachand Sharma @ Krishna Chandra
Sharma, Resident of Village- Parsawan, P.S.- N.T.P.C., Barh, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
State of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna.
4. The Additional Collector, Patna.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Barh, Patna.
6. The Circle Officer, Barh, Patna.
7. The S.H.O., Barh Police Station, Barh, Patna.
8. Sri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, Son of Late Sushil Kumar Jaiswal, Resident of
Village- Salempur, Barh Nagar Parishad, Barh, P.O. and P.S.- Barh, District-
Patna.
9. Ramsagar Prasad, Son of Late Jagdish Mahto, Resident of Village-
Fatehchand, P.S.- Barh, District - Patna.
10. Kamta Prasad, Son of Late Jagdish Mahto Resident of Village- Fatehchand,
P.S.- Barh, District - Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ram Shankar Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/state : Mr.Standing Counsel (26)
Mr. Divit Vinod, Advocate, AC to SC 26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-01-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a
direction to the respondent authorities to restrain the private
respondent no. 8 to 10 from disturbing the possession of the
petitioner and making any construction over the land belonging
to the petitioner situated at Survey Plot No. 667 appertaining to
Patna High Court CWJC No.656 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/4
Khata No. 338 and Survey Plot No. 668, Khata No. 339 having
a total area of 04 Katha at Mouza -Akbarpur Chondi in the
district of Patna.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
cadastral survey khatiyan the land in question was settled by the
ex-landlord on 20.04.1928 by executing Kabuliyat deed in the
name of one Parmeshwar Mahto @ Parmeshwar Yadav and
subsequently the said Parmeshwar Mahto executed registered
deed of sale on 06.10.1978 in favour of the mother of the
petitioner. After purchase of the land, the petitioner through his
mother came in possession over the land in question and
mutation was done in favour of petitioner’s mother vide
Mutation Case No. 92 of 1993. The respondent no. 8 claiming
himself to be the heir of ex-landlord and respondent no. 9 & 10
to be purchaser from the heirs of ex-landlord tried to disturb the
possession of the petitioner over the land in question for which a
Title Suit bearing T.S. No. 117 of 1986 was filed by the mother
of the petitioner against the aforesaid respondents. At the time
of filing of Title Suit the petitioner was minor and during course
of time the parents of the petitioner died and nobody was there
to look after the case which resulted in dismissal of the said suit
in default. After coming to know about the Title Suit the
Patna High Court CWJC No.656 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/4
petitioner has filed a Miscellaneous Case for restoration of
Title Suit No. 117 of 1986 and the proceeding therein is going
on. Taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner from the
village, the mutation of the subject land has been done in favour
of respondent no. 9 & 10 whereas the jamabandi is still
continuing in the name of petitioner’s mother. The petitioner has
filed Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 183 of 2022-23 which is
pending before Additional Collector, Patna.
4. Learned A.C. to S.C. No.- 26 submits that insofar as
cancellation of jamabandi / mutation standing in the name of
petitioner’s mother is concerned, the petitioner has already taken
steps and has filed Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 183 /
2022-23 before the learned Additional Collector, Patna which is
still pending. Pertaining to the grievance of the petitioner of
threatened dispossession and proposed construction of boundary
wall upon the subject land, learned counsel submits that
petitioner has remedy before the competent authority / DCLR
under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 and the
petitioner may avail statutory remedy before the competent
authority.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already filed
Patna High Court CWJC No.656 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/4
Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 183 of 2022-23 and has also
taken steps for restoration of Title Suit No. 117 of 1986, this
writ application is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to
pursue remedy before the Civil Court, Patna as well as before
the Additional Collector, Patna before whom the petitioner has
already filed jamabandi cancellation case against the respondent
no. 8, 9 & 10.
6. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner with regard to
threatened dispossession and construction of boundary wall
upon his land is concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
take recourse to remedy provided under Section 4 of the Bihar
Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. If the petitioner files a
petition before the competent authority in accordance with law,
the same shall be considered by the competent authority and
after hearing all the parties the petition filed by the petitioner
shall be disposed by a reasoned and speaking order within a
reasonable time frame.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this
application is disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.