Kamlesh PrasadversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8070 of 2026
     ======================================================
     Kamlesh Prasad, Son of Shyam Narayan Bind, resident of village- Jhikhateya,
     P.O.- Rukunde, P.S.- Bimdeya, Anchal Goh, Anumandal, Daudnagar, District-
     Aurangabad.


                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Revenue and Land
     Reforms Deport, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Commissioner, Magadh Parmandal, Gaya Ji, Bihar.
3.   The District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Bihar).
4.   The Additional Collector, Aurangabad, Bihar.
5.   The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Aurangabad, Bihar.
6.   The Sub Divisional Magistrate, (SDM), Aurangabad (Bihar).
7.   The Circle Officer, Goh, Aurangabad, Bihar.
8.   The Ramodhar Singh, Son of Raghu Raj Singh, resident of village- Rukunde
     P.S.- Bimdeya, Anchal Goh, Anumandal, Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad
     (Bihar).


                                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :      Mr. Kedar Yadav, Adv.
     For the State           :      Mr. Harun Quareshi, AC to SC-1
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     Date : 01-07-2026


                       Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

      the parties.

                       2. The petitioner has approached this Court with
Patna High Court CWJC No.8070 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
                                           2/3




         misconceived reliefs, which cannot be granted under writ

         jurisdiction exercising powers under Article 226 of the

         Constitution of India.

                         3. The petitioner has raised the question of creation

         of Jamabandi in his name through the direction issued by the

         writ Court to the Circle Officer, Goh, Aurangabad without

         having approached the Circle Officer previously on any

         occasion to get the land mutated in his name for creation of

         Jamabandi. The petitioner has also, in alternative, prayed for

         giving him possession over the land in question, the details of

         which are as follows:

                                 “Area 8 decimal, Khata No. 38, Plot No. 1115,
                          North Road (Chawar), South-Sri Ram Bind, East-Sona
                          Devi, West-Sakaldeep Sharma and others”.



                         4. It appears that without availing the proper

         remedy, either before the Circle Officer/D.C.L.R., for recovery

         of possession in terms of Section 4 of the Bihar Land Disputes

         Resolution Act, 2009 or else without having approached the

         Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for getting the title

         decided, the petitioner has approached this Court directly with

         the prayer to decide the possession as well as creation of

         Jamabandi in his favour.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.8070 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
                                                        3/3




                                      5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the State

                      very fairly submits that the writ application being wholly

                      misconceived, is fit to be dismissed in limine.

                                      6. After having heard the learned counsel for the

                      parties at length and having gone through the documents

                      brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the

                      petitioner, under misconceived notion, has availed the wrong

                      forum under the writ jurisdiction as this Court cannot entertain

                      and decide the issue relating to disputed question of facts.

                                      7. In this backdrop, this application is disposed off

                      with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate

                      authority under appropriate proceeding for getting the reliefs,

                      which he sought to claim in the present writ application.

                                      8. The writ application stands disposed off.

                                      9. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands

                      disposed off accordingly.



                                              (Rana Vikram Singh, J)

Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          02.07.2026
Transmission Date       N/A