Patna High Court
Raj Kumar PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The writ jurisdiction is not available for adjudicating private disputes over title and possession; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
Petitioner Raj Kumar Paswan filed a writ petition seeking a direction to remove an alleged encroachment by private respondent Samundari Devi on land for which a settlement order dated 12.01.2014 had been passed in his favour. He also prayed for restoration of peaceful possession of the disputed parcel measuring 04 decimal. The High Court observed that the dispute concerned title and possession between two private parties, which is a matter of fact that cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. Although the District Magistrate had affirmed the settlement in favour of the petitioner, such administrative orders do not confer jurisdiction on the court to issue a writ against a private respondent. The Court held that the appropriate remedy is to approach a civil court where evidence can be led and witnesses examined. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file a suit in a competent civil court.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the dispute involves title and possession between private parties.
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ directing removal of encroachment based on a settlement order and an order of the District Magistrate.
- Whether the existence of an administrative order in favour of the petitioner confers jurisdiction on the writ court.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- civil suit
- land dispute
- private dispute
- encroachment
- settlement order
- jurisdiction
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8973 of 2026
======================================================
Raj Kumar Paswan, Son of Jeewachh Paswan, Resident of village and Post-
Pandaul, Police Station- Pandaul, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani.
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Madhubani.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani.
6. The Circle Officer, Pandaul, District- Madhubani.
7. Most. Samundari Devi, wife of Late Banarasi Paswan, resident of village-
Pandaul Chhota Asthan, Anchal and P.S.- Pandaul, District- Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (04)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 29-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner for a direction to the respondent authorities to remove
the encroachment made by the private respondent upon the land
of the petitioner having Khata No. 3626, Khesra no.
2249(old)/3619(New) measuring an area of 04 decimal at
Mauza- Pandaul, Anchal and Police Station- Pandaul, District
Madhubani with an additional prayer for a direction to the
respondent to restore the peaceful possession over the disputed
land which has been settled in his favour in Settlement Parcha
Case No. 14 of 2013-14 by an order dated 12.01.2014.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8973 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
2/3
3. From the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner and the documents brought on record in the writ
application, it appears that there is dispute between two private
persons which is not a subject matter of writ jurisdiction,
because under writ jurisdiction, the Court can only go by the
undisputed facts in order to decide the claim/relief(s) prayed for
on behalf of the petitioner. Disputed question of facts cannot be
adjudicated between two private persons, which is simply
beyond the writ Court jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out
that by Annexure P-4 appended to the writ application, the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhubani has passed an
order dated 18.02.2025 in Basgit Parcha Appeal No. 55 of 2024
allowing the appeal of the petitioner, thereby affirming the
Basgit Parcha issued in favour of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the State, at this stage, submits
that the writ application is not maintainable on account of the
disputed question of facts raised on behalf of the petitioner
which cannot be decided here at this stage, because deciding
and adjudicating the right of the persons concerned requires
evidence and examination of witnesses which can only be done
by the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8973 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
3/3
6. The petitioner’s claim cannot be decided here in the
writ jurisdiction on account of dispute being totally of private
nature between two private persons. Though, certain orders may
have been passed by the District Authority in favour of the
petitioner, but that does not entitle him to avail the writ
jurisdiction to get the order passed against the private
respondent.
7. The proper remedy available to him is that of
approaching the Court of competent civil jurisdiction to get his
rights, title and possession over the disputed land decided by
adducing evidence on behalf of the rival parties and having
appreciated the same and examining the witnesses on record, the
competent Court of civil jurisdiction may pass
order/judgment/decree finally adjudicating the right, title and
possession of the petitioner.
8. With this observation, this writ application is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper
Court of competent jurisdiction to get his disputes with the
private respondent settled through proper court proceedings.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Saurabh.kr/
Supratim-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.