Patna High Court
Jitendra Prasad and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISS FOR NON-PROSECUTION
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
The petitioners, five individuals residing in Sitamarhi, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of rent notices issued in 2005 by the Deputy Collector, Khas Mahal, alleging excessive rent demands and claiming prior payment. They also requested that the authorities recompute the rent after hearing them. The respondents filed a counter‑affidavit indicating that the petitioners had indeed deposited rent and that the notices were issued due to audit objections, and noted that the challenge was filed ten years after the notices. The Court observed that the petitioners had not appeared or responded to the notices and instead directly approached the High Court. Since there was no appearance or prosecution of the petition, the Court dismissed the writ petition for non‑prosecution.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for petitioners challenging rent notices issued in 2005?
- Can a writ petition be entertained after a ten‑year delay without any appearance or response to the notice?
Subjects
- writ petition
- quashing notice
- rent demand
- land reforms
- limitation period
- non‑prosecution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8145 of 2016
======================================================
1. Jitendra Prasad son of Late Vishwanath Prasad resident of Ward No. 15,
Opposite S.R.K. Goyanka College, P.S. & District-Sitamarhi.
2. Shankar Prasad son of Ramrup Prasad resident of Ward No. 15, Opposite
S.R.K. Goyanka College, P.S. & District-Sitamarhi.
3. Md. Habib son of Later Jahir Hussain resident of Ward No. 15, Opposite
S.R.K. Goyanka College, P.S. & District-Sitamarhi.
4. Abdul Samad son of Saukat Ali resident of Ward No. 15, Opposite S.R.K.
Goyanka College, P.S. & District-Sitamarhi
5. Safdar Ali son of Saukat Ali resident of Ward No. 15, Opposite S.R.K.
Goyanka College, P.S. & District-Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. The Collector, Sitamarhi.
3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sitamarhi.
4. The Deputy Collector Incharge, Khas Mahal, Sitamarhi
5. The Circle Officer, Sitamarhi.
6. The Principal, S.R.K. Goyanka College, Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 No one appears on call.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of writ in the appropriate
nature for quashing of the Notice dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.8145 of 2016(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
19.09.2005 and 23.09.2005 issued under the
signature of the Deputy Collector, Khas Mahal
whereby and where under the notices has been
given to these petitioners for deposit of rent of
Rs. 37,696/-, Rs.19,667/- and Rs.2,53,937/-
respectively except reserving amount for the
financial year 2005-06 without considering and
hearing of the parties that previous rent has
already been deposited and the rent fixed by the
respondents authority are excessive.
(ii) for further direction to the
respondents authority to consider the case of the
petitioners and after hearing the parties fix
afresh rent according to law and recalculate the
rent deposited by these petitioners.
(iii) and for any other relief/reliefs for
which petitioners are found to be entitled in the
eye of law.”
3. The prayer clearly show that notices were issued to
the petitioners by the respondents and instead of replying to the
said notice, they rushed to this Court.
4. The counter affidavit of the Deputy Collector Land
Patna High Court CWJC No.8145 of 2016(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
Reforms, Sitamarhi shows that some of the petitioners deposited
rent against their shops and since the audit objected to the
pending amounts, notice issued.
5. Instead of reply to the notice, the writ petition. The
affidavit also shows that the notices were issued in the year
2005-06 and challenge was made ten years later in the year
2016.
6. Be that as it may, since there is no appearance, the
writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…