Uttam JhaversusThe State of Bihar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7953 of 2026
     ======================================================
     Uttam Jha son of Krishandeo Jha, resident of village- Bhawanipur, P.O.-
     Pathakdih, P.S.- Amdanda (Sanhaula), District- Bhagalpur.

                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                   Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department,
     Government of Bihar at Patna.
2.   The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government, Government of Bihar
     at Patna.
3.   The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division
     Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur.
4.   The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhagalpur.
5.   The Circle Officer, Sanhaula, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur.
6.   The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Boda Pathakdih, Block-
     Sanhaula, District- Bhagalpur.
7.   The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Boda Pathakdih, Block-Sanhaula, District-
     Bhagalpur.
8.   The Officer in Charge, Amdanda Police Station, Bhagalpur.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, Adv.
     For the Respondent/s   :     Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4
                                  Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC-4
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 01-07-2026
                Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

                  2. The instant case is another glaring example of the

      style of functioning of the District Administrative authorities

      which purportedly discharge their duties in accordance with the

      law, but as per their whims and fancies.

                  3. The land of the petitioner situated on Khata No.

      395 (New)/101 (Old), Khesara No. 1022 (New)/758 (Old),
Patna High Court CWJC No.7953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
                                           2/8




         Mouza – Bhawanipur, Revenue Thana No. 488, Anchal –

         Sanhaula, District – Bhagalpur is Raiyati land over which his

         family has been coming in possession since long back.

                     4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

         in the year 1976 during survey, on account of clerical mistake in

         the Khatian in place of petitioner’s ancestor’s name, the name of

         Bihar Sarkar has been shown to be as owner of the land. The

         moment petitioner came to know about this, he filed title suit

         bearing Title Suit No. 24/2006 for declaration of his right, title,

         interest and possession thereof and also for correction of the

         wrong entry made in the survey in the column of land holder’s

         name. Learned Munsif 1st Bhagalpur by judgment and decree

         dated 21.10.2009 and 06.11.2009 dismissed his suit, whereafter

         he preferred an appeal by filing a Title Appeal No. 123/2009,

         which was heard and allowed by 2nd Additional District Judge,

         Bhagalpur under judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 and

         23.12.2017 respectively.

                     5. The learned Additional District Judge has

         categorically held that the land belongs to the family of

         petitioner and it is their Raiyati land over which they have been

         coming in possession, but on account of mistake in the survey of

         1976, a wrong entry has been made replacing the name of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
                                           3/8




         petitioner by the name of Bihar Sarkar in the column of land

         holders for which the State Government could not produce any

         documents disentitling the petitioner from claiming the right,

         title and possession over the suit land. Accordingly, the 1 st

         Appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner and as submitted

         that has not been assailed by the State Government, thus it has

         attained finality.

                     6. He further submits over this piece of land taking

         undue advantage of the wrong entry made in the khatian,

         respondent nos. 6 and 7 allowed the construction of a village

         road in spite of objection and protest by the petitioner. Alarmed

         by such an act of respondent nos. 6 and 7, the petitioner filed a

         representation on 08.11.2017 before the Executive Engineer,

         R.W.D., Works Division Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur but no action

         was taken thereon. Further he again represented respondent no.

         3 on 26.11.2020 highlighting the highhandedness of the

         respondent nos. 6 and 7, but this representation has also fallen

         on deaf ears.

                     7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

         petitioner that thereafter he filed several representations right

         from the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur to all the authorities

         concerned, but, none of the district authorities paid any heed to
Patna High Court CWJC No.7953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
                                           4/8




         his representations. He further submits without acquiring his

         Raiyati land, respondents have allowed the construction of

         village road on the same which infringes his legal and statutory

         right to possesses his land in a peaceful manner, which also

         amounts to interfering in the peaceful possession of the land in

         question. A categorical statement has been made in the writ

         application that till date the village road is being constructed

         further without resorting to the process of acquisition of his

         Raiyati land.

                     8. Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, learned counsel appearing on

         behalf of the State duly assisted by Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh,

         learned counsel submits that though from record it appears that

         the land belongs to petitioner’s family, but initially he lost his

         case preferred against the construction of road and rectification

         with respect to wrong entry made in the khatian during 1976

         survey from the Court of learned Munsif, so the authorities

         proceeded with the construction of road under reasonable belief

         that the land on which village road was being constructed,

         belongs to the State of Bihar. He also points out that the

         petitioner succeeded in appeal in December, 2017, whereby the

         Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur has allowed his appeal

         and passed judgment in his favour holding him to be the Raiyat
Patna High Court CWJC No.7953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
                                           5/8




         of the land in question, but the petitioner filed representation

         before the authorities one month prior to the aforesaid judgment.

         That is why it was not taken note of in view of the judgment

         passed by the Munsif, dismissing the suit of the petitioner.

                     9. Having heard the learned counsels on behalf of the

         petitioner and the State and having gone through the documents

         placed on record, especially, the judgment of the learned

         Additional District Judge 2, Bhagalpur and other relevant

         representations       annexed/appended       thereto   with the   writ

         application, it becomes manifestly evident that petitioner is the

         raiyat of the land i.e., Khata No. 395, Khesara No. 1022, area

         01.29 decimals, situated in mouza- Bhawanipur, Revenue Thana

         No. 488, Anchal- Sanhaula, District- Bhagalpur in question.

         After the judgment of the competent Court there remains no

         dispute with respect to right, title, possession and interest over

         the suit land.

                     10. Further, it is also evidently manifest that village

         road is being constructed over the Raiyati land of the petitioner

         without even following the due process of the acquisition of the

         aforesaid land. The law mandates that the State being sovereign

         has authority over all the land within its territorial jurisdiction,

         but it can acquire any piece of land for the purposes of public
Patna High Court CWJC No.7953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
                                           6/8




         and social welfare for providing amenities and benefits to the

         people at large, only after complying the legal process has been

         laid down for the same and that process cannot be given a go-

         bye without even giving any plausible and reasonable

         explanation for the same.

                     11. In the instant case without giving any kind of

         notice to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 started

         constructing village road over his Raiyati land which appears to

         be totally against the settled principle of law. When the

         petitioner filed representations highlighting this illegal act of the

         respondents, even the higher authorities of the district did not

         pay any heed to it and by this conduct they impliedly supported

         the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and other persons to get the village

         road constructed over Raiyati land of the petitioner which

         amounts to gross violation of the petitioner’s legal and statutory

         right.

                     12. It also becomes clear from the documents and

         arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that neither the

         land has been acquired nor compensation has even been paid to

         him. When the land has not been acquired following the due

         process then there arises no question of payment of any

         compensation. It also smacks off the highest degree of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
                                           7/8




         arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.

                     13. In this backdrop, the Court deems it appropriate to

         issue a necessary direction to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur

         to look into the matter personally without delegating the power

         to other officer and conduct the proceeding him/ herself and get

         the matter enquired at the ground level which must be examined

         and cross-examined and duly verified and authenticated from

         the relevant revenue records and the judgment and decree of the

         competent Court and only thereafter the District Magistrate shall

         pass a proper and positive order adjudicating and determining

         the rights and claims of the petitioner and if in that course, need

         arises to hear any of the person concerned including the

         respondents as well as the petitioner, the District Magistrate,

         Bhagalpur will issue proper notice and after having heard all the

         parties concerned will take a decision in the matter. If a

         conclusive finding with respect to the genuineness of the claims

         of the petitioner is found then all possible measures available

         through the law must be resorted to by the District Magistrate in

         order to ameliorate the grievances of the petitioner including

         passing of necessary order of acquisition of the land over which

         village road has already been constructed and further the

         District Magistrate will ensure that no further village road is
             Patna High Court CWJC No.7953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
                                                        8/8




                      constructed on the Raiyati land of the petitioner without proper

                      acquisition of the same and that too after having paid the

                      compensation amount thereof.

                                  14. All this exercise must be concluded within a

                      period of three months henceforth and all sequel orders giving

                      consequential benefits must be followed by a reasoned and

                      speaking order passed by the District Magistrate.

                                  15. With these directions, the writ application is

                      disposed off.

                                  16. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any,

                      stand/s disposed off.




                                              (Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Supratim/
Smriti-
AFR/NAFR                    NAFR
CAV DATE                    NA
Uploading Date              03.07.2026
Transmission Date           NA