Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The petition is dismissed for lack of specific pleadings, but the petitioners are permitted to file a fresh representation with supporting documents.
Summary
Six petitioners alleged that the State, District Magistrate, BSRDCL and other authorities marked their land on the southern side of Hospital Road, Nawada with a red boundary without issuing any notice, thereby interfering with their peaceful possession. They sought a writ restraining the authorities and disclosure of the legal basis for the marking. The petition, however, failed to specify the exact land or attach supporting documents, and the respondents argued that it was vague and untenable. The Patna High Court held that the petition could not be entertained in its present form but allowed the petitioners to file a fresh representation with proper documents before the District Magistrate within two weeks. The court directed the authorities to issue notices and pass a reasoned order within three weeks of receiving the representation, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition lacking specific description of the land and supporting documents is maintainable.
- Whether authorities can mark land for acquisition without prior notice under the applicable land acquisition law.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim relief restraining interference with their possession.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- red marking
- writ petition
- interim relief
- notice
- possession
- Bihar
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8869 of 2026
======================================================
1. Rahul Kumar, Son of Sudama Sao, Resident of Hospital Road, PS-Nawada
Sadar, District-Nawada.
2. Ranju Devi, Wife of Rajesh Prasad, Resident of Koiyari Tola, Warsaliganj,
District-Nawada.
3. Tara Devi, Wife of Oim Prakash, Resident of Aruri, PS-Pakri Barwan,
District-Nawada.
4. Manoj Kumar, Son of Hari Lal Sao, Resident of Hospital Road, PS-Nawada
Sadar, District-Nawada.
5. Santosh Kumar, Son of Muni Lal, Resident of Hospital Road, PS-Nawada
Sadar, District-Nawada.
6. Bhola Kumar, Son of Naval Kishor Prasad, Resident of Resident of Hospital
Road, PS-Nawada Sadar, District-Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawada.
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawada.
3. The BSRDCL through is Deputy General Manager, Nawada.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer, Nawada.
5. The Circle Officer, Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saharsh Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, AC to GP-20
For the BSRDCL : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-06-2026
Patna High Court CWJC No.8869 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
2/4
Heard Mr. Saharsh Singh, the learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Shahi, the learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the BSRDCL (respondent
No. 3). The State has been represented by Mr. Mrigendra
Kumar, the learned AC to GP-20.
2. The petitioners have come with a prayer for
restraining the respondent authorities from interfering with
their peaceful possession over the land in question without
specifying the details of the land, simply giving vague details
of the land by stating that the same has been situated on the
southern side of the Hospital Road, Nawada. The further
submission on behalf of the petitioners is that red marking has
been done without issuing any notice to them by the
respondent authorities.
3. It has further been prayed on behalf of the
petitioners that the respondent authorities may be directed to
disclose the authority of law under which they have put red
mark over the land in question without issuing any notice, on
which, the acquisition proceeding is to take place.
4. Perusal of the writ application reflects that
without specifying the details of the land in question, mere
averments have been made and no supporting documents have
Patna High Court CWJC No.8869 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
3/4
been annexed thereto, substantiating and buttressing the claim
of the petitioners’ right, ownership and title over the land in
question.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that against the red marking over the petitioners’
land, a representation has been filed before the District
Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Nawada (respondent No. 2) for
considering the arbitrary action taken by the respondent
authorities and to ameliorate their grievances.
6. Mr. P.K. Shahi, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the BSRDCL (respondent No. 3), and
Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the State, have
submitted that the writ petition lacks basic foundational facts
and, thus, on these very vague grounds and in absence of any
specific pleading on record, the same is fit to be dismissed.
7. However, in view of the fair stand taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that they may be granted
liberty to file a fresh representation before the authority
concerned, they are directed to file fresh representation before
the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Nawada (respondent
No. 2), highlighting their grievances duly supported by
relevant documents, within a period of two weeks from today,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8869 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
4/4
who, on receipt of such representation, after verifying all the
facts and after having issued notices to all the concerned and
having heard all the parties, shall pass a reasoned and
speaking order in accordance with law within a further period
of three weeks of the receipt of such representation.
8. It is needless to state that if the claim of the
petitioners are found to be tenable, necessary sequel order
shall also be passed by the concerned respondent/authority
within the aforesaid period.
9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the
writ petition stands disposed off.
10. 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 30.06.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.