Patna High Court
Ram Briksh PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- GIRIJISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that no statutory rule governs the construction, the matter is based on executive policy, and the petitioner lacks locus standi, so the writ cannot be issued.
Summary
Ram Briksh Prasad filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a prohibition against the construction of a Panchayat building at Kordhandhi tola, Kurmawa, alleging the site is water‑logged and not the Gram Panchayat headquarters. He argued that the Department of Panchayati Raj’s policy requires the building to be on non‑wetland, head‑quarter land and that the authorities were ignoring this and the consent of the Mukhiya. The respondents, comprising various state officials, opposed the petition. The Court examined whether any statutory rule governed the location of Panchayat buildings and whether the petitioner had locus standi. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, the Court held that the construction is based on an executive policy, not a statutory provision, and therefore is not amenable to judicial review via a writ. Consequently, the Court found the petitioner not an aggrieved party and dismissed the writ application.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of prohibition can be issued to restrain the construction of a Panchayat building on a water‑logged site
- Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the executive policy
- Whether any statutory rule or regulation governs the location of Panchayat buildings
- Whether the matter is justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- Panchayat building
- writ of prohibition
- Article 226
- locus standi
- executive policy
- land reform
- wetland
- public authority
- environmental suitability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8339 of 2026
======================================================
Ram Briksh Prasad Son of Late Jageshwar Prasad Das, Resident of Village-
Dirawan, Bodhgaya, Police Station-Cherki, District-Gaya Ji.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
4. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Gaya.
5. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Gaya.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya.
7. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Sadar, Gaya.
8. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Bodhgaya, District-Gaya.
9. The Block Development Officer, Bodhgaya, District-Gaya.
10. The Building Division, Gaya.
11. The Circle Officer, Bodhgaya, District-Gaya.
12. Manoj Kumar Mehta Expramukh, Son of Late Kapildeo Mahto, Resident of
village-Kurmawa, Police Station-Cherki, District-Gaya.
13. Arun Kumar Deputy Mukhiya Kurmawa Panchayat, Block- Bodhgaya,
District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (13)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
2. In the present writ application, the petitioner
has prayed for grant of following reliefs;
“(i) To issue an appropriate order/orders
Patna High Court CWJC No.8339 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/4
direction/directions including a writ preferably
in the nature of prohibition restraining the
respondents from construction of a Panchayat
Building in Kordhandhi tola situated in village-
Kurmawa under Bodhgaya Block in the District of
Gaya ji which is not a suitable place for the
construction and the same is always inundated
with water.
(ii) To direct the respondents to concern
to construct Panchayat Building after taking
consent from the Mukhiya of the concern
Panchayat.
(iii) To direct the respondent no.4 to
take action against the guilty persons who are
adamant to construct the Panchayat Building in
a place inundated with water and not suitable for
the same.
(iv) To any other relief/reliefs to which
the petitioner may be found entitled in the fact
and circumstances of the case..”
3. Learned appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
inter-alia, contended that the department of Panchyati Raj
has issued an instruction that Panchayat building should be
constructed in the head quarter of Gram Panchayat in the
land which is Gairmzarua Aam and Annabad Bihar Sarkar,
however, the construction of Panchayat building is being
carried out by the respondents in Kordhandhi, Kurmawa
Tola under Gram Panchayat, Dirawan in Bodhgaya block in
the district of Gayaji which is not the headquarter of Gram
Panchayat. He further submits that Panchayat building
Patna High Court CWJC No.8339 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/4
cannot be constructed by filling any water sources pond lake
or marsh. However, even in flood affected areas, Panchayat
buildings are being built at higher places so that they remain
unsafe. He further submits that in village Panchayat
Kurmawa, land admeasuring 01 acre and 86 decimal
appertaining to Khata No. 255, 254, Khesra No. 1154, 489
recorded as Annabad Sarvsadharan land is available despite
that the Mukhiya of the concern Panchayat has provided
another site on the main road of village-Dirawan, P.S. Cherki,
Block-Bodhgaya, District-Gaya which is not the suitable
place for the construction as the same is inundated with
water.
4. I have heard the submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the
materials available on record.
5. This Court is of the view that in the matter of
construction of Panchayat building, no statutory rule or
regulation is applicable rather it is being done on the basis of
an executive policy formulated for implementation of an
executive policy, therefore, in such a situation, a writ can not
be issued as held by the Supreme Court in the case of The
Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in 1993(4)
Patna High Court CWJC No.8339 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
4/4
SCC 357. The petitioner, if so advised, may take up the
matter with the competent authority of the State
Government by filing of a representation and it is for the
competent authority to consider the grievance of the
petitioner and take action as may be permissible under law.
6. The Petitioner is a busy body and not an
aggrieved party, and no statutory or legal right of the
petitioner is infringed or threatened, therefore, writ
application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is
not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction and
liberty granted to the petitioner this writ application is
disposed of.
(Girijish Kumar, J)
brajesh/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.