Patna High Court
Pathal DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court held that the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate’s failure to act precludes the writ petition, and the petitioner must seek relief by filing a fresh petition before the SDM.
Summary
Pathal Devi, a senior citizen, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to remove an obstruction placed by private respondents (Nos.5‑7) that blocked access to her house from the public road. She claimed the obstruction disturbed her daily life and requested the court to order the respondents to provide an access way. The State counsel argued that she should have approached the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for redress. The petitioner contended that she had approached the SDM on 4‑12‑2025, but the officer failed to act. The court held that the SDM had indeed failed to discharge his statutory duty, and therefore the appropriate remedy was to approach the SDM again rather than the High Court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the court directing the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the SDM, who must then adjudicate the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative administrative remedy under the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate is available.
- Whether the failure of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to act on the petitioner’s grievance justifies dismissal of the writ petition.
Subjects
- access road
- obstruction
- senior citizen
- writ petition
- administrative remedy
- Sub‑Divisional Magistrate
- High Court
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.76 of 2026
======================================================
Pathal Devi W/o Late Surendar Pandey, Resident of Village- Haziapur, P.S.-
Sahpur, District- Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Revenue Department
Patna, Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Danapur, District Patna.
4. The Circle Officer, Sahpur, Patna.
5. Ramsharan Yadav, Son of not known Resident of village- Laxami Chak
Ushari, P.S.- Sahpur, District- Patna.
6. Arjun Singh @ Arjun Rai, Son of not known Resident of village- Laxami
Chak Ushari P.S.- Sahpur District- Patna.
7. Surendar Yadav, Son of not known Resident of village- Laxami Chak
Ushari, P.S.- Sahpur, District- Patna .
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Ghanshyam Choudhary, Avocate
: Mr. Vaibhav Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (9)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) for direction be issued to the
respondents to grant of access the way of the
petitioner home to approach the public road as
such this way created obstacle by the front side
land owner which is the respondent no. 5 to 7 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.76 of 2026(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
the petitioner as same disturb the daily routine
life whereby where under land question (the
petitioner home) situated at Mouza-Jaipur
Hathiakandh, bearing Thana no. 31, Touzi no.
2837, Khata no. 98 Survey Plot no. 2933 due to
said obstruction by the private respondents the
petitioner has difficulty to out grace in grace in
her house.
(ii) for direction be issued to the
respondents to accommodate the way of the
petitioner in favour of the Senior citizen (the
petitioner).
(iii) for any other relief or reliefs as
your lordships may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The petitioner claims to own a piece of land but is
being disturbed by the respondent nos. 5 to 7.
4. Learned State counsel submits that she should have
approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Danapur, Patna for
the redressal of the grievance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier she moved before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Danapur,
Patna High Court CWJC No.76 of 2026(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
Patna but he/she failed to look into the matter. A perusal of the
writ petition would show that (Annexure-P/3) has been attached
according to which on 04.12.2025, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Danapur, Patna was approached.
6. If a citizen is aggrieved and there is a forum and if
he/she prefers any application, the officer is duty bound to look
into the matter and take the same to its logical conclusion.
Respondent no.3, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Danapur, Patna
certainly failed in the matter.
7. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of
allowing the petitioner to prefer a fresh petition before the
respondent no.3, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Danapur, Patna
who shall be taking up the said petition and after noticing,
hearing the parties, is duty bound to finally conclude the
proceeding and pass an appropriate order.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…