Patna High Court
Suresh ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, directing the parties to resolve the dispute before the district court where the title suit is pending, without granting mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Chaudhary, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to restrain the State officials and the village Mukhiya from constructing a Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) godown on land that is the subject of a pending title suit (No. 322/2018). He claimed possession of the land and alleged that the Circle Officer had issued no objection certificate for the construction. The High Court noted that the matter directly relates to the pending civil suit and that the appropriate forum to resolve the dispute is the district court where the title suit is pending. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner and the State respondents to appear before the district court on a specified date to address any objections, and dismissed the writ petition without granting the requested mandamus. The order emphasized expeditious resolution of the underlying suit and maintained the status quo pending that proceeding.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to restrain construction of a PACS godown on land pending in a civil title suit.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226/227 to entertain the writ petition in view of the parallel civil proceedings.
- Whether the status quo can be maintained through a writ pending the outcome of the title suit.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- land dispute
- title suit
- status quo
- PACS godown
- Article 226
- Article 227
- CPC Order 39
- High Court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.889 of 2026
======================================================
Suresh Chaudhary S/o- Late Dodhai Chaudhary @ Sukhdev Chaudhary, R/o-
Ward No.06, Baidynathpur, P.O. Baidynathpur P.S.- Rosera, District-
Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, Samastipur, Bihar.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Rosera, Samastipur.
4. The Circle Officer, Rosera, Samastipur, Bihar.
5. The Block Development Officer, Rosera, Samastipur, Bihar.
6. Shrimati Prema Devi, Mukhia, Village Panchayat Raj Motipur, P.S.- Rosera,
District- Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhashkar, AC to GP 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Piyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhashkar,
learned AC to GP 11 for the State.
2.Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs
in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-
“I. For issuing a writ like mandamus directing
the respondents to refrain from making a PACS godown on
the land belonging to the petitioner, which is the subject
matter of the Title Suit 322/2018(TS 89/2018), currently
pending in the court of Learned Munsif, Rosera.
II. For issuing a mandamus to the respondents
to maintain the status quo over the subject matter of the
land, which is the subject matter of the Title Suit
no.322/2018.
III. For issuing a writ of mandamus to the
respondent by issuing a direction not to interfere with the
petitioner’s right to cultivate the suit land.
IV. For any other relief/reliefs to which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.889 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
petitioner is found entitled tin the facts and circumstances
of this case and in the interest of justice.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner
seeks to Add Article 227 of the Constitution of India for
entertaining the present writ petition in course of the day and he
will also deposit the required court fees today, in the background
of the fact that the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on part of
the learned District Court, where an application under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been filed in Title Suit No.322/2018
(TS No.89/2018) and the same is pending till date.
4. Learned counsel is permitted to do so.
5. Considering the nature of relief as sought for in the
present writ petition, I find that the subject matter of the present
writ petition is same to that of title suit which has been filed in
respect of piece of land, appertaining to old Khata No.340, Old
Khesra No.1519 corresponding to New Khata No.1115, New
Khesra No.2855, total area of 72 decimals. Petitioner has
claimed that he is in possession of the said piece of land and
recently during the pendency of title suit, an injunction petition
was filed before the learned District Court but in spite of that,
the Circle Officer, Rosera, Samastipur, who is also party to the
said suit, has issued no objection certificate to the Mukhiya of
the Gram Panchayat, Motipur for construction of Primary
Patna High Court CWJC No.889 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
Agricultural Credit Societies Godown (PACS Godwan).
6. In view of the above information brought on
record, I direct the petitioner and the respondents no.2 to 5 to
appear before the learned District Court concerned where Title
Suit No.322/2018 (TS No.89/2018) is pending. In case
respondents no.2 to 5 seek to file objection to the petition filed
for injunction on behalf of the petitioner, the same be filed
within a week from date of communication of this order.
7. I find that no notice is required as the District
Magistrate, Samastipur and other government officials are
represented by the learned State counsel / Mr. Santosh Chandra
Bhaskhar. The parties are directed to appear before the learned
District Court on 09.02.2026 at 10:30 a.m., so that expeditious
action can be taken, considering that the petitioner has made out
a case that as on date, he is in possession of the property as
mentioned above.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U
Checking your session…