Patna High Court
Shivchand RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, with the Court directing the District Magistrate‑Cum‑Collector to decide the petitioners' representation within four weeks, as the civil title suit remains pending.
Summary
The petitioners, claiming possession of a 25‑decimal plot in Kauriram based on a 1988 Parcha and Jamabandi, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to stop the State from constructing a government building on the land. They also filed a title suit (No. 899 of 2023) in the civil court and a representation before the District Magistrate‑Cum‑Collector on 13 January 2026 alleging forced eviction. The State argued that the petitioners had already availed the appropriate civil remedy and could not simultaneously seek relief in the writ jurisdiction. The Court observed that the civil suit and the writ petition address distinct remedies – the former determines legal title, while the latter concerns immediate grievance redressal before the magistrate. Consequently, the Court directed the District Magistrate‑Cum‑Collector to dispose of the representation within four weeks and disposed of the writ petition. No substantive order on the title suit was made, as it remains sub‑judice.
Issues considered
- Can petitioners obtain relief in writ jurisdiction when a title suit challenging their possession is pending in a civil court?
- Is it permissible to direct the District Magistrate‑Cum‑Collector to dispose of the petitioners' representation within a specified time despite the pending civil suit?
- Do the remedies before a civil court and the district magistrate constitute distinct and separate avenues of redress?
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- title suit
- possession
- Parcha
- eviction
- district magistrate
- civil remedy
- simultaneous relief
- government building construction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8026 of 2026
======================================================
1. Shivchand Ram Son of Late Kishun Ram, Resident of Village- Kaudiram,
P.S.- Mohania, District- Kaimur.
2. Ghasi Ram, Son of Sri Kumar Ram, Resident of Village- Kauriram, P.S.-
Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) Bihar 821109.
3. Sunaina Devi, Wife of Rama Shankar Ram, Resident of Village- Kauriram,
P.S.- Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua Bihar 821109.
4. Balister Ram, Son of Ramgati Ram, Resident of Village- Kauriram, P.S.-
Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua.
2. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania Kaimur.
4. The Circle Officer, Bhabhua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Shweta Anand, AC to GP-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-07-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been
preferred for directing the respondents not to construct the
Government building over the piece of land upon which
Patna High Court CWJC No.8026 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
2/5
the petitioners claimed to be the Parchadharis of the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that on the strength of the Parchas issued in the
year 1988, the petitioners have been coming over the
possession of the land in question, situated in Village-
Kauriram, bearing Khata No. 48, Khesra No. 243 having
an area of 25 decimal, and Jamabandi has also been
created in their names and they have regularly been paying
rent. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the petitioners, who are landless persons, have
been residing over the said piece of land since long back
on the strength of the Parchas issued by the competent
authority, have been dispossessed forcibly by the District
Administration for construction of the Government
building over the same.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also
highlights that the petitioners have preferred a Title Suit,
bearing No. 899 of 2023, which is pending in the Court of
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohania (Bhabhua)
for adjudication
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submits and highlights that since the petitioners
Patna High Court CWJC No.8026 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
3/5
have already preferred a proper remedy available to them
in law by filing a Title Suit before the competent Court of
civil jurisdiction, they have no right to avail the
simultaneous relief in the writ jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Court.
6. It is evident from the records that the
petitioners have already preferred a Title Suit challenging
their forceful eviction from the land over which they are
claiming possession on the strength of Purcha, is pending
before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction and for the
same they have also filed representation, detailing the facts
and circumstances of their case, before the District
Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua) on
13.01.2026, but the same appears to have fallen on deaf
ears as the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector has still not
decided the same, forcing the petitioners to approach this
Court under writ jurisdiction.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have
already availed the proper remedy by preferring Title Suit,
questioning their eviction from the land which they
possess and have been residing on the strength of Parcha
duly issued to them, which is still sub-judice before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8026 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
4/5
competent Court of civil jurisdiction, which has to decide
the same on the basis of the evidence brought before it by
the respective parties, but, in the meantime, on account of
them being homeless and landless, the petitioners
approached the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector,
Kaimur (Bhabua) (respondent No. 2) by filing a
representation, highlighting their grievances, with a prayer
to take a proper decision for redressal of their grievances.
8. Both the remedies are different and distinct.
The remedy before the Court of competent civil
jurisdiction is of judicial nature, which would, ultimately,
determine the right of the petitioners to have a claim over
the land on the strength of the Parcha and whether
cancellation of the same and consequent eviction of the
petitioners from that piece of land is legally tenable or not,
is totally a different subject matter, whereas, before the
District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua), the
petitioners have come with the prayer to look into their
grievances and alleged atrocities by the local authorities,
which, in their estimation, could only be addressed and
redressed by the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector of the
concerned district.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8026 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
5/5
9. Thus, the District Magistrate-Cum-
Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua)/respondent No. 2 is,
accordingly, directed to dispose off the representation
dated 13.01.2026 preferred by the petitioners within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of
a copy of this order in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid observation/direction,
the writ petition stands disposed off.
11. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed off.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 04.07.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.