Patna High Court
Anjeesh Kumar @ Bambam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable; the petitioner must seek relief from the appropriate civil court.
Summary
The petitioner, Anjeesh Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking possession of a dwelling house and his share therein. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and various officials, argued that the dispute is civil in nature and should be resolved by the appropriate civil court. The Court observed that the writ petition was filed without first exhausting the remedy available before the competent civil jurisdiction. It further noted that the orders of the Commissioner and D.C.L.R. being challenged did not decide the title but merely assisted execution of a civil court order. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ application, directing the petitioner to approach the proper civil forum, and warned that any limitation issues would be considered by the appropriate authority.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for a civil dispute concerning possession and share in a dwelling house.
- Whether the orders of the Commissioner, Magadh Division, and the D.C.L.R., Daudnagar are amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ jurisdiction
- Civil remedy
- Possession dispute
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Disposal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9365 of 2026
======================================================
Anjeesh Kumar @ Bambam Kumar S/o Late Brajesh Prasad, R/o Village Mauari, PS
Haspura, District Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Dept of Revenue and Land Reform
Department.
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya Jee, P.S. and District- Gaya Jee.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya Jee, P.S. and District- Gaya Jee.
4. The D.C.L.R., Daudnagar Aurangabad, P.S. and District- Aurangabad.
5. Manish Kumar, Son of Late Ramesh Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Mauari, PO-
Koilwan, PS- Haspura, Distt- Aurangabad.
6. Mrinal Kumar, Son of Late Ramesh Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Mauari, PO- Koilwan,
PS- Haspura, Distt- Aurangabad.
7. Rajnish Kumar Ambuj, Son of Late Ramesh Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Mauari, PO-
Koilwan, PS- Haspura, Distt- Aurangabad.
8. Vijaya Kumari, D/o Late Ramesh Pd. Singh, R/o Village- Mauari, PO- Koilwan, PS-
Haspura, Distt- Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
=======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramadhar Singh, G.P.- (25)
=======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, duly assisted by Mr. Pranav Anand,
learned Advocate, fairly submits that the petitioner, instead of
availing remedy before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction,
has come to this Court under writ jurisdiction for resolution of
dispute with respect to the possession over dwelling house and
respective shares in the same.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State also submits
that this writ application is not maintainable on account of the relief
Patna High Court CWJC No.9365 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/2
as prayed for because both the respondents no. 2 & 4 i.e. the
Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya Jee & the D.C.L.R.,
Daudnagar, Aurangabad whose orders have been impugned, have
not passed any order deciding the right and title between the parties
but in fact they have assisted in execution of the order passed by
the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this writ
application is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to avail
proper remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with
law.
5. It goes without saying that if any question of
limitation arises before the competent authority/Court, the same
shall be considered taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed off in
aforesaid terms.
7. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed
off accordingly.
Saurabh.kr/ (Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Prakash-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.