Patna High Court
Ghanshyam RishiversusThe State of Bihar Through The District Magistrate
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the revenue authorities must be approached to investigate and decide the land dispute within a stipulated timeframe, and therefore disposed of the writ petition with directions rather than granting mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Ghanshyam Rishi, claimed that he and his brothers were allotted a parcel of land under Settlement Case No. 34 of 1990-91, but were later forcibly dispossessed by respondents 6‑8. He filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State authorities to restore possession of the land. The respondents argued that the petitioner had not approached the appropriate revenue officials and that a possession case (No. 01 of 2024‑25) indicated the land was in the possession of other Sikmidars. The court found no evidence that the revenue authorities had examined the matter or issued a decision, and noted the lack of any counter‑affidavit from the State after September 2024. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Circle Officer, K. Nagar, who must investigate the facts and, if necessary, recommend allotment of alternative land through the District Collector within eight weeks, with a final decision by the Sub‑Divisional Officer within four weeks. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of possession of the disputed land through a writ of mandamus.
- Whether the revenue authorities have failed to exercise jurisdiction to resolve the land dispute.
- Whether the petitioner’s remedy lies in approaching the appropriate revenue officials before seeking judicial intervention.
Subjects
- land possession
- settlement case
- writ of mandamus
- revenue authority
- restoration of possession
- Bihar land reforms
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8245 of 2024
======================================================
Ghanshyam Rishi Son of Jallo Rishi, Resident of - Chunapur, Aerodrome,
Ward No.- 13. P.S.- K.Nagar, District- Purnea, Pin Code- 854301.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through The District Magistrate Purnea.
2. The District Magistrate, Purnea.
3. The Additional Collector, Purnea.
4. Sub - Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Purnea Sadar, District-
Purnea.
5. The Circle Officer, K.Nagar, Purnea.
6. Md. Jahangir Son of- Late Azeez, Resident of- Adampur, P.S.- K.Nagar,
District- Purnea.
7. Md. Ayub Son of- Late Azeez, Resident of- Adampur, P.S.- K.Nagar,
District- Purnea.
8. Md. Imteyaz Son of- Late Azeez, Resident of- Adampur, P.S.- K.Nagar,
District- Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Akanksha Malviya, Advocate
Ms. Shuchi Bharti, Advocate
Mr. Akash Keshav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
Mrs. Manisha Singh, AC to GP-7
Ms. Mita Kumari , AC to GP-7
For the Pvt. Respondents: Mr. Gyanand Roy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard Ms. Akanksha Malviya, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mrs. Manisha Singh, AC to GP-7 and Mr. Gyanand
Roy, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 6 to 8.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“I. For issuance of writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) or
Patna High Court CWJC No.8245 of 2024(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/4
order(s) or direction(s) commanding the respondent
authority to restore the possession of the land
bearing Mauza: - Gowasi, Thana No:- 121, Khata
No:- 8, Khesra No. :- 78, Rakwa: 0.41 Decimal, and
Khesra:- 79, Rakwa:-0.75 Decimal with the
petitioner.
And/Or
II. Pass such order(s), Further Order(s) or
Direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of Justice under the facts and
circumstances of the present Case.”
3. The matter relates to piece of land the details of
which is/are as follows:
“Mauza: - Gowasi, Thana No:- 121,
Khata No:- 8, Khesra No. :- 78, Rakwa: 0.41
Decimal, and Khesra:- 79, Rakwa:-0.75 Decimal.”
4. The claim of the petitioner is that he alongwith his
brothers were allotted/settled, the aforesaid piece of land through
a Settlement Case No. 34 of 1990-91 (Annexure-P/1 to the
petition). However, later, the respondent nos. 6 to 8 forcibly
dispossessed them which followed their petitions before
appropriate respondents authorities and as no light came from the
other side of the tunnel, the writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8245 of 2024(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/4
5. A counter-affidavit has come on behalf of the
respondent no. 5 duly signed by the Circle Officer, K. Nagar,
Purnea and the sum and substance of the said reply is/are that: the
petitioner failed to approach the Revenue Authorities which
include the Sub Divisional Officer, the Deputy Collector Land
Reforms as also the Circle Officer.
6. Further, a red card delivery of Possession Case No.
01 of 2024-25 was initiated and vide an order dated 16.07.2024,
enquiry report was sought for and as per the report, it is in
possession of Sheikh Habib/heirs as ‘Sikmidars’ and petitioner
never came in possession of the property. Thereafter, both the
parties were directed to appear before the concerned Circle
Officer, K. Nagar, Purnea on 27.08.2024.
7. The story stops at that place and there is no counter-
affidavit filed by the State after 03.09.2024.
8. There is nothing on record to show that the Revenue
Authorities looked into the matter and:
“(i) came to a conclusion so far as the
present land is concerned;
(ii) in case, it came to the conclusion that
the land is in possession of the Sikmidars, as
recorded above, the step that has been taken to settle
the undisputed land amongst other to the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.8245 of 2024(2) dt.20-04-2026
4/4
herein.”
9. In that background, this Court allows the petitioner to
approach the concerned Circle Officer, K. Nagar, Purnea who
shall be taking immediate steps to look into the aforesaid facts,
and thereafter, in case, comes to the conclusion that the
petitioner/family members have to be allotted a different piece of
land to take steps/make appropriate recommendation through the
DCLR, Sadar, Purnea to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar,
Purnea.
10. The entire process has to be completed in eight
weeks and once the file reaches the table of the Sub Divisional
Officer, Sadar, Purnea, he/she is duty bound to take a decision in
next four weeks.
11. The aforesaid order/direction is given in the
background of the fact that they have not yet taken any decision as
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the aforesaid
notice issued in the year 2024, no further information has come.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…