Patna High Court
Brijmohan PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The petition is disposed of, with the petitioners directed to file a fresh, detailed representation before the District Magistrate‑Collector before any further action is taken.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of landowners in Nawada, sought a writ restraining the State of Bihar, the District Magistrate‑Collector, BSRDCL and other officials from interfering with their possession of a parcel of land described only vaguely as being on the southern side of Hospital Road. They alleged that the authorities had placed a red marking on the land and commenced acquisition proceedings without issuing any notice or disclosing the legal authority for such action. The respondents argued that the petition was vague, lacked specific facts or supporting documents, and therefore was not maintainable. The Court observed that the petition indeed suffered from a lack of precise particulars but, in the interest of justice, allowed the petitioners a chance to file a fresh, detailed representation before the District Magistrate‑Collector within two weeks. The Court directed the authority to consider the representation, issue notices, hear all parties and pass a reasoned order within three weeks, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent authorities can interfere with the petitioners' possession of land without prior notice.
- Whether the red marking and alleged acquisition proceedings are authorized under any statutory provision.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite vague pleadings and lack of supporting documents.
- Whether the petitioners should be directed to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate‑Collector.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- red marking
- writ petition
- possession
- notice requirement
- procedural fairness
- district magistrate
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8870 of 2026
======================================================
1. Brijmohan Prasad Son of Prasadi Saw, Resident of Hospital Road, PS-
Nawada Sadar, District-Nawada.
2. Manoj Kumar, Son of Nand Kishor Shaw, Resident of Hospital Road, PS-
Nawada Sadar, District-Nawada.
3. Kundan Kumar, Son of Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Resident of Hospital Road,
PS-Nawada Sadar, District-Nawada.
4. Ramchandra Prasad, Son of Prasadi Sao, Resident of Mirzapur Station Road,
PS-Nawada Sadar, District-Nawada.
5. Ajeet Kumar, Son of Pradeep Saw, Resident of Hospital Road, PS-Nawada
Sadar, District-Nawada.
6. Ravindra Kumar Gupta, Son of Ram Charan Lal, Resident of Line Par
Mirzapur, 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 its Deputy General Manager, Nawada, Adarsh City
Society, Karna Bela, PS- Nawada Town, Dist.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. Shankar Kumar Thakur, AC to GP-27
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.8870 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. Shankar
Kumar Thakur, the learned AC to GP-27.
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.8870 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. Shankar Kumar Thakur, 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.8870 of 2026 dt.29-06-2026
4/4
relevant documents, within a period of two weeks from today,
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.