Patna High Court
Sadhu Mahto and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- CONSIGNED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition was dismissed as the peremptory order was not complied with.
Summary
The petitioners, sons of the late Lala Mahto, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus against several police officials and the State of Bihar for failing to act against the looting of their harvested crops by a group of individuals, despite a prior order dated 04‑09‑2014 in a land dispute case. They alleged that the respondents either ignored or facilitated the looting, and requested the court to direct immediate protective and recovery measures. The court noted that a peremptory order had been issued, but the respondents did not comply with it. Consequently, the petitioners were given a four‑week period to file a substitution petition, which they failed to do. The court therefore dismissed the petition on 19‑03‑2026 for non‑compliance with the peremptory order.
Issues considered
- Whether the police officials and the State failed to comply with the earlier order to prevent looting of the petitioners' crops.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the respondents to take action against the alleged looters.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with the peremptory order and to file a substitution petition.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- land dispute
- looting of crops
- police inaction
- peremptory order
- High Court
- Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8966 of 2015
======================================================
1. Sadhu Mahto and Ors
2. Bahadur Mahto,
3. Paras Mahto,
4. Jatta Mahto, All Sons of Late Lala Mahto, Resident of Village - Khusrupur
Chauraha, Baikatpur, P.O. and P.S. - Khusrupur, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The State of Bihar, through District Magistrate,Patna.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barh, Patna.
4. The Rural Superintendent of Police, Patna.
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Baikhtiyarpur Police Station, Patna.
6. The Circle Officer, Barh, Patna.
7. The Circle Inspector, Bakhtiyarpur, Patna.
9. Babaji Rai, Both Sons of Sobhit Rai,
10. Rameshwar Rai, Son of Mahabir Rai,
11. Jagat Rai, Son of Palaki Rai,
12. Bindeshwar Rai, Son of Bulaki Rai, All 7 to 11 resident of village -
Hardaspur, P.S. - Baktiyarpur, District - Patna.
14. Nanda Rai, Son of Late Mitan Rai,
15. Basawan Rai,
16. Shatrughan Rai, Both Sons of Late Madan Rai,
17. Ramdeo Rai,
18. Pramod Rai, Both sons of Late Yadu Rai,
19. Pinku Rai, Son of Biraj Rai,
20. Yugal Rai, Son of Ramdeo Rai,
21. Eknam Rai, Son of Jitan Rai, All 12 to 20 resident of Village - Dedaur, P.S. -
Bakhtiyarpur, District - Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rekha Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, AC to AAG-15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.8966 of 2015(6) dt.26-03-2026
2/3
6 26-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) For issuance a writ of
Mandamus upon respondentno.4 to show
cause as to why no action has been taken
against respondent no.7 to 20 for forcefully
harvested and looted crops of petitioners in
presence of respondent no.4 and 5 even after
clear direction of respondent no.1 given in its
order dated 04.09.2014 passed in Land
Dispute Case No. 01/2014-15 containing
Annexure: 10.
(ii) For issuance of writ of
mandamus upon respondent no. 4 to show
cause as to why he had not instituted case
against respondent no.7 to 20 in spite of
repeated requests both oral and written
information dates.
(ii) For issuance of writ of
mandamus upon respondent no.2 and 3 to
show cause as to what steps has been taken
on the application of petitioner no.1 dated
10.02.2015 for taking immediate action as
there was apprehension of committing loot of
the crops of the land of the petitioners on
which order has been passed on 04.09.2014
by respondent no.1 itself.
iv) For issuance of writ of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8966 of 2015(6) dt.26-03-2026
3/3
mandamus upon respondent no.4 to take
appropriate action for protection of life and
property of the petitioners from the hands of
respondent no.7 to 20 who have looted the
harvested crops of the petitioners in presence
of respondent no.4 and 5 on the point of
deadly weapons.
(v) For issuance of appropriate
order directing respondent no. 2 to 5 to take
appropriate and immediate steps for
recovery of petitioner's crops from
respondent no.7 to 20 or direct them to net
payment of cost of the looted properties as is
evident from the photographs taken on the
date of the said loot.
(vi) Any other relief or reliefs to
which the petitioners may be on entitled may
also be given to them.
3. On 19.02.2026, four weeks’ time was granted to
file substitution petition.
2. As it was a peremptory order and not complied,
stood dismissed on 19.03.2026.
3. Perused the file, consigned.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…