Patna High Court
Rana Pratap Sinha @ Rana JiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the writ petition must be disposed of because the matter is sub judice before the District Judge and the appropriate remedy is to await the outcome of the pending Title Appeal.
Summary
The petitioner, Rana Pratap Sinha, sought a writ of mandamus directing the revenue authorities to determine and fix rent for several parcels of land after a title suit (No. 97 of 2019) was decided in his favour. He alleged that despite a letter from the Deputy Collector Land Reforms directing the Circle Officer to act, no rent fixation was made. The respondents argued that a Title Appeal (No. 28 of 2025) is pending before the District Judge and that the writ petition must await the outcome of that appeal. The court noted that the appeal is a substantive proceeding that must be taken to its logical conclusion before any writ can be issued. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue relief through the pending appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the revenue authorities to fix land rent after a title suit has been decided in favour of the petitioner.
- Whether the pendency of Title Appeal No. 28 of 2025 bars the issuance of the writ.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief pending the resolution of the appeal.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- land rent fixation
- revenue law
- title suit
- appeal pending
- civil writ jurisdiction
- land reforms
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9260 of 2025
======================================================
Rana Pratap Sinha @ Rana Ji Son of Late Rameshwar Prasad @ Budhan Ji,
Resident of Village and P.O. and P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Bhojpur, Ara.
2. The Collector Bhojpur, Ara.
3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur.
4. The Circle Officer Jagdishpur, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present application has been preferred:
for issuance of writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to determine and
fix rent of the land having new Khata No.-
884, new Khesra No.-2301 area 0110 hectare
and new Khesra No.-2302 area 10 hectare
and new Khata No.-883, new Khesra No.-
2209 area 0.1870 hectare as mentioned in
the judgment dated 05.12.2019 and decree
dated 06.12.2019 passed in Title Suit No.97
of 2019 as despite the report of employee
(Karamchari) and order of Deputy Collector
Land Reforms, Jagdishpur to the Circle
Patna High Court CWJC No.9260 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
Officer, Jagdishpur to determine and fix the
land rent in the name of petitioner has not
been done and for issuance of other
appropriate writs/writs, orders/orders,
direction/directions, for which the petitioner
would be found entitled under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
3. The details of the land stands incorporated in
paragraph 1 of the petition. It was recorded in the name of the
grandfather of the petitioner namely, Bindhyachal Rai and when
there was interference by the State of Bihar, the petitioner
preferred Title Suit No. 97 of 2019 (Rana Pratap Sinha vs. State
through Collector). It came to be disposed of on 05.12.2019 and
the Title was decided in favour of the petitioner (Annexure- P/2
to the petition).
4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the
respondent authorities and the contention is that the Deputy
Collector Land Reforms, Jagdishpur took cognizance of the fact
and vide letter no. 1601 dated 09.09.2024, directed the Circle
Officer, Jagdishpur to do the needful in accordance with law and
as per the documents on record (Annexure- P/5 to the petition).
5. As the revenue authorities chose to look the other
way, the writ petition.
6. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9260 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
respondents and now their contention is that the Title Appeal
No. 28 of 2025 has been preferred before the learned District
Judge, Bhojpur, Ara and the petitioner has to wait till a decision
comes in the said appeal.
7. Considering the development that has taken place
after filing of the writ petition inasmuch as the State respondents
have preferred the Title Appeal, the same has to be taken to its
logical conclusion.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
shall be appearing in the case and will do the needful to see to it
that the order passed in Title Suit No. 97 of 2019 is upheld.
9. Granting said liberty to contest the Title Appeal No.
28 of 2025, if it crosses the barrier of delay in filing the appeal/
the limitation petition filed by the State respondents, the writ
petition is disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…