Patna High Court
Raj Kumar RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable and is disposed of, allowing the petitioner to seek relief through a civil suit.
Summary
Petitioner Raj Kumar Ram filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking declaration of his title to land he claims to have purchased in 2015, despite the land having been acquired by the State in 2013. He later prayed for withdrawal of the writ so that the dispute could be decided by a civil suit in a competent court. The respondents, including the State of Bihar, district authorities, and the National Highway Authority of India, contended that the writ was not maintainable as it raised factual disputes and was misconceived. The Court noted that the petitioner’s own request to withdraw indicated the appropriate remedy lay in a civil suit, not writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ application, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue his claim in a regular civil proceeding, while leaving any limitation issues to be considered by the appropriate authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when it involves factual disputes regarding land title.
- Whether the petitioner is required to pursue his claim through a civil suit rather than writ jurisdiction.
- Whether limitation can be raised before the competent authority in the context of the writ.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- land acquisition
- civil suit
- withdrawal of writ
- limitation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9856 of 2026
======================================================
Raj Kumar Ram S/o- Sukhiram, R/o- Village- Lachatola, P.S.- Muffasil Arah,
District- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reform Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. District Magistrate, Collectorate Campus, Near Ramna Maidan, Arah,
District- Bhojpur, Pin Code- 802301.
3. Competent Authority cum DCLR (Deputy Collector Land Reform), Sub
Divisional Office Permises, Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur, Pin Code-
802158.
4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate Campus, Near Ramna
Maidan, Arah, District- Bhojpur, Pin Code- 802301.
5. National Highway Authority of India, Through its Chairman, G-5 and G-6,
Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi, Pin Code- 110075.
6. Regional Officer of NHAI (National Highway Authority of India), Classicon
Shivmitra Apartment, Block-B, 1st Floor, Vivekanand Marg, Boaring Road,
Patna-800013.
7. Pappu Pandey, S/o Late Tej Narayan Pandey, R/o Village- Sahpur, P.O-
Bihiyan, P.S- Sahpur, District- Bhojpur.
8. Brindavan Pandey, S/o Late Tej Narayan Pandey, R/o Village- Sahpur, P.O-
Bihiyan, P.S- Sahpur, District- Bhojpur.
9. Jiut Pandey, S/o Late Tej Narayan Pandey, R/o Village- Sahpur, P.O-
Bihiyan, P.S- Sahpur, District- Bhojpur.
10. Shrawan Pandey, S/o Late Tej Narayan Pandey, R/o Village- Sahpur, P.O-
Bihiyan, P.S- Sahpur, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deovind Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP-23
For the NHAI : Dr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Adv.
Ms. Preety Ranjan, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
Mr. Deovind Kumar Singh prays for withdrawal of the writ
application in order to get his title decided by filing an
Patna High Court CWJC No.9856 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/2
appropriate suit before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.
Since his claim of being purchaser of a land, in the year 2015 on
the strength of a registered sale deed, which has already been
acquired in the year 2013 itself, cannot be decided in the writ
jurisdiction as it involves disputed question of facts of myriad
nature.
3. Dr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of N.H.A.I. and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned
A.C. to G.P. 23 have forcefully submitted that writ application
is not maintainable on account of it being wholly misconceived.
4. Since the petitioner has himself prayed for
withdrawal of writ application to avail the proper remedy
available to him in the law, this writ application is disposed of
with aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.
5. It goes without saying that if any question of
limitation arises before the competent authority, the same shall
be considered taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioner was pursuing the issue before this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Rupa/Supratim-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.