Patna High Court
Ram Ashish Mahto @ Ram Ashish SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the Collector’s failure to obtain State Government guidelines does not preclude the validity of the pending orders, and a fine of Rs.250 may be imposed, thereby deeming the orders valid subject to payment of the fine.
Summary
The petitioners, a large group of landowners, filed a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the District Magistrate‑Collector of Sitamarhi to dispose of several pending miscellaneous cases (Nos. 45/1990 to 52/1990) filed under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. The Collector contended that Section 32 permits him to impose a fine of up to Rs.250 only after receiving guidelines from the State Government, which had not been issued, causing the cases to remain pending. The Court noted the inordinate delay of more than three decades and examined whether the Collector could be compelled to act without the State Government’s guidelines. It held that the Collector’s inability to produce the guidelines does not invalidate the pending orders and that a fine of Rs.250 may be levied for the default. Consequently, the Court deemed the orders in Misc. Cases 45‑51 of 1990 to be valid, subject to payment of the Rs.250 fine, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Collector can be compelled by mandamus to dispose of pending cases under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 in the absence of State Government guidelines.
- Whether a fine of Rs.250 can be imposed on the Collector for failure to dispose of the cases under the same provision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- Section 32
- Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act
- administrative law
- fine
- land consolidation
- delay in disposal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6808 of 2025
======================================================
Ram Ashish Mahto @ Ram Ashish Singh S/o Shri Anup Lal Mahto, R/o
Village-Bariyarpur, P.S.-Sitamarhi, Anchal Dumra, District-Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and
Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Sitamarhi.
3. Smt. Sita Devi, W/o Sri Dharkhan Mahto, Daughter of late Most. Nirshania
Devi, wife of Late Swaroop Lal Mahto, R/o Village Hari Bela, P.S.
Bathnaha, District-Sitamarhi.
4. Smt. Suniyana Devi @ Smt. Sunaina Devi, W/o Sita Ram Singh, Daughter
of late Most. Nirshania Devi, wife of Late Swaroop Lal Mahto, R/o Village
Bhasar Machahan Tola Satya Macha, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
5. Smt. Sudama Devi, W/o Shri Nagendra Mahto, Daughter of late Most.
Nirshania Devi, wife of Late Swaroop Lal Mahto, R/o Village-Adhgai, P.S.-
Parihar, District-Sitamarhi.
6. Shri Ramchandra Singh, S/o Late Ram Lakhan Singh, R/o Village and P.O.-
Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
7. Birendra Bharti, son of Late Bam Mahto, S/o Late Manna Mahto, R/o
Village and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
8. Devi Lal Singh, son of late Bam Mahto, S/o late Manna Mahto, R/o Village
and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
9. Surendra Singh, Son of Late Bam Mahto S/o Late Manna Mahto, R/o
Village and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
10. Raghvendra Raman, son of Late Bam Mahto S/o Late Manna Mahto, R/o
Village and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
11. Jai Kishore Singh, son of Late Deo Narain Singh, R/o Village and P.O.-
Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
12. Umesh Singh, son of Late Deo Narain Singh, R/o Village and P.O.-
Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
13. Arjun Singh, son of Late Ramawatar Singh S/o Late Raghu Singh, R/o
Village and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
14. Ram Iqbal Singh, son of Late Ramawatar Singh S/o Late Raghu Singh, R/o
Village and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
15. Manoj Singh, son of Late Ramawatar Singh s/o Late Raghu Singh, R/o
Village and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
16. Ram Dev Singh, son of Late Dhup Lal Bhagat, S/o Raghu Mahto @ Raghu
Singh, R/o Village and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
17. Raj Nandan Singh, son of Late Dhup Lal Bhagat s/o Raghu Mahto @ Raghu
Singh, R/o Village and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
18. Dev Nandan Singh, son of Late Dhup Lal Bhagat S/o Raghu Mahto @
Patna High Court CWJC No.6808 of 2025(4) dt.27-04-2026
2/4
Raghu Singh, R/o Village and P.O.-Bariyarpur, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi.
19. Ankit Kumar, son of Ram Bhagat Singh @ Ram Janam Singh (grandson of
Late Ram Pratap Singh), Resident of Village-Sirauli Tola Ramnagar, P.S.
Riga, District-Sitamarhi.
20. Sri Indal Singh Navin, Ex-Pracharya-Radha Krishna Prusotam Lal Dhanuka,
Kishan College, Bariyarpur, Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (5)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 27-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred:
for issuance of a writ of mandamus
or writ in the nature thereof or any other
appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction
commanding the respondent No.2-the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitamarhi
to dispose of pending Misc. Case
Nos.45/1990, 46/1990, 47/1990, 48/1990,
49/1990, 50/1990, 51/1990 & 52/1990 filed
by the petitioner under Section 32 of the
Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and
Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
3. A counter affidavit as also the supplementary
counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent no. 2, the
Collector, Sitamarhi and this Court has taken note of paragraph
10 of the counter affidavit which read as under:
10. That in response to the averments
Patna High Court CWJC No.6808 of 2025(4) dt.27-04-2026
3/4
made in paragraph 8 of the instant writ, it is most
respectfully stated that Section 32 of the
Consolidation Act which deals with the prohibition
on transfer of lands, specifically provides that the
Collector of the District may impose fine (not
exceeding Rs.250/-), subject to the general orders
of the State Government.
Hence, the Collector, Sitamarhi vide
impugned orders dated 28.05.1990 (Annexure P/2
Series) rightly held that fine can be imposed only
after communication of such direction by the State
Government.
4. The order-sheets of different misc. cases from
45/1990 to 51/1990 have come by way of supplementary
counter affidavit in which it is recorded that guidelines have not
been received by the State Government and as such, the
applications remained pending. This is order dated 28.05.1990
as recorded above.
5. In the opinion of the Court, lots of water has flown
down the ganges since the year 1990. We are in the year 2026,
three and half decades have crossed and despite the Collector,
Sitamarhi himself filing the affidavit, he is unable to inform
whether the guidelines have been received from the State
Government or not.
6. In that background, this Court accepts the statement
Patna High Court CWJC No.6808 of 2025(4) dt.27-04-2026
4/4
made in paragraph 10 and the order shall be considered as have
been passed subject to payment of Rs. 250/- which is the fine
amount.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with
the observation that all the orders passed in Misc. Case No. 45
of 1990 up to Misc. Case No. 51 of 1990 be deemed to have
been validly passed subject to payment of Rs. 250/- as the fine
amount.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…