Patna High Court
Ganeshi RishidevversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court disposed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Collector with a proper petition and proof of bonafide landlessness, and did not grant the mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Ganeshi Rishidev, claimed possession of two plots of land in Purnea district for which he had been issued a red card/parwana under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The respondents, representing the State, had declared the same land surplus and acquired it under section 15(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The petitioner sought a mandamus to restrain any obstruction of his possession and, alternatively, a fresh red card for other surplus plots. The court observed that the petitioner must first file a proper petition before the District Collector, demonstrating that he is a bonafide landless person, within eight weeks. The court directed the Collector to decide the matter after hearing the parties and reviewing the revenue report. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to retain the land declared surplus under the Bihar Land Reforms Act
- Whether a mandamus can be issued to restrain obstruction of the petitioner's possession
- Whether the petitioner qualifies as a bonafide landless person for allocation of alternative surplus land
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land ceiling
- surplus land
- mandamus
- red card
- parwana
- bonafide landless
- writ jurisdiction
- Bihar land reforms
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8925 of 2019
======================================================
Ganeshi Rishidev Son of Late Soman Rishidev, resident of Village- Patraha
Dihtola, P.O- Malidiha, P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Collector, Purnea.
3. The Additional Collector, Purnea.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Purnea, District- Purnea.
5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar Purnea, District- Purnea.
6. The Anchal Adhikari, Barhara Kothi, P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea.
7. Shri Ram Kishore Singh, Son of Late Basudeo Singh, resident of Village
Malladiha, P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 06-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(a) a mandamus
commanding/restraining the respondents from
not creating any obstruction/disturbances
regarding physical cultivating possession of the
petitioner over the land situated at Mauza
Pathraha, Thana no.174, Khata No.43 bearing
plot no. 636, 637, area 0.96 decimal under P.S.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8925 of 2019(4) dt.06-01-2026
2/3
Bahrhar Kothi in the District of Purnea for
which the petitioner was granted red
card/Parwana under provisions of Bihar Land
Reforms) (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to the land in question) as
the aforesaid land besides other plots of land
were declared as surplus land and the same were
acquainted by the respondent District Collector,
under provision of section 15(i) of the Land
Ceiling Act or alternatively if the respondent
land holder went to retain the land in question
under his own allotted Ceiling Units then issue
direction to the respondent for issuing a fresh
Parwana/red card in favour of the petitioner for
another undisputed suitable plots of land which
have been declared surplus in aforesaid land
Ceiling Case and have been acquired by the
respondent District Collector u/s 15(i) of the
Ceiling Act but such plots have not been illegally
transferred by the respondent land holder to any
third persons.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8925 of 2019(4) dt.06-01-2026
3/3
(b) any other writ/writs for granting
any other relief(s) for which the petitioner is
found entitled to in the facts and circumstances
of the present case”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the changed circumstance when the landholder has retained the
land, he is entitled to relocation.
4. Learned State counsel submits that if a proper
petition is preferred, the same shall be considered/disposed of.
5. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of
allowing the petitioner to approach the Collector, Purnea in next
eight weeks with a proper petition and also will have to show
that he is a bonafide landless person.
6. If such petition is preferred, after hearing the
parties calling the report from Revenue Authorities, the
Collector, Purnea shall be taking a decision at an earliest.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…