Patna High Court
Ashraf HussainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The petition is disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the encroachment order within two weeks under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.
Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be raiyati land holders in Nasriganj, Rohtas, challenged an order dated 15‑12‑2025 issued by the Circle Officer directing them to remove alleged encroachments. They argued that the land is their raiyati possession and that the removal order is illegal. The State contended that the order is appealable under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and that any grievance should be pursued through that statutory remedy rather than a writ petition under Article 226. The Court held that the writ petition is disposed of, granting the petitioners liberty to file an appeal against the order within two weeks. It further directed that any appeal be heard by the District Magistrate, Rohtas, who must decide within twelve weeks, and that no coercive action be taken against residential/shop structures pending the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Circle Officer directing removal of structures on the petitioners' raiyati land is appealable under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.
- Whether the petitioners can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 for relief against the encroachment order.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land encroachment
- raiayti land
- public land
- Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act
- Section 11
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.793 of 2026
======================================================
1. Ashraf Hussain Son of Shamimuddin Khan @ Shamin Miyan, Resident of
village- Mauna, Post Office- Taraun, Police Station - Nasriganj, District-
Rohtas.
2. Rahmatullah Ansari, Son of Late Shahbuddin Ansari, Resident of village-
Mauna, Post Office- Taraun, Police Station - Nasriganj, District- Rohtas.
3. Sayad Qaisar Nehal, Son of Syed Nehaluddin, Resident of village- Mauna,
Post Office- Taraun, Police Station - Nasriganj, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Revenue Land Reforms
Department, Patna, Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Sub Divisional Public Grievances Officer, Block- Kanti, District-
Muzaffarpur.
4. The Circle Officer, Block- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mazharul Hassan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to GA-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 06-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners claiming to be land holders of the
part of different Khata and Khesra number situated within
Nasriganj, Rohtas are aggrieved with the order dated 15.12.2025
as also the notice issued thereupon by the Circle Officer,
Nasriganj, Rohtas in Encroachment Case No. 03/2025-26,
whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove the
encroachments.
Patna High Court CWJC No.793 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners refuting the
findings of the Circle Officer, Nasriganj, Rohtas has submitted
that the land, over which the petitioners have been coming in
possession are their raiyati land and, as such, any order to
remove the structures constructed over the raiyati land of the
petitioners by treating it to be an encroachment is wholly illegal
and unsustainable in law.
4. Learned Advocate for the State, at the outset,
submits that the order passed by the Circle Officer, Nasriganj,
Rohtas is appealable under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, 1956 and if the petitioners have any
grievance, they should prefer appeal before invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the statutory remedy available to the petitioners under the law,
the present writ petition stands disposed off with a liberty to the
petitioners to prefer appeal against the impugned order, if so
aggrieved, within a period of two weeks.
6. In case, such an appeal is preferred, the learned
competent authority/District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram shall
hear the appeal and pass appropriate order, in accordance with
law, within a further period of twelve weeks, after giving proper
Patna High Court CWJC No.793 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
opportunity to all stake holders. However, it is made clear that if
the alleged encroachment is residential/shop in nature till filing
of the appeal and on hearing the stay petition, no coercive steps
shall be taken.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U
Checking your session…