Patna High Court
Rabindra Kumar SinhaversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court held that the dispute is a factual matter that must be adjudicated by a civil court and there is no ground to interfere with the Collector's order.
Summary
The petitioner, Rabindra Kumar Sinha, claimed ownership of 85 square feet of land in Kishanganj, asserting that it formed part of his family's six kathas and that a 1996 encroachment drive had unjustly removed his structure. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Collector's order dismissing his appeal and a writ of mandamus directing restoration of the land and compensation. The Collector had dismissed the petition, relying on a 1910 survey that designated the land as State property, despite the petitioner presenting a 1986 Khatiyan. The High Court observed that the factual dispute over ownership and the alleged illegal encroachment is best resolved by a competent civil court. Consequently, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Collector's order and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Collector's order dismissing the petitioner's claim can be set aside by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the 85 sq ft land claimed as his property.
- Whether the petitioner can claim compensation for the demolition of his structure.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition or the matter should be decided by a civil court.
Subjects
- encroachment
- land ownership
- writ of certiorari
- writ of mandamus
- civil court jurisdiction
- municipal land
- survey report
- property dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9890 of 2018
======================================================
Rabindra Kumar Sinha Son of Late Jamuna Prasad Resident of Mahavir
Marg, Kamal Market, P.O. Kishanganj, P.S. Kishanganj, District Kishanganj,
Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate/Collector, Kishanganj,
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishanganj
4. The Kishanganj Municipality Nagar Parishad through its Chief Executive
Officer, District Kishangan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
Mr.Kumar Ravish, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14
For Kishanganj Nagar Parishad : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
6 22-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel
for the petitioner duly assisted by Kumar Ravish, Mr. Dhurjati
Kumar Prasad, learned GP-14 and Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, learned
counsel for the Kishanganj Municipal Corporation.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) to issue a writ of certiorari by quashing
and setting aside Annexure-P/10 i.e. the
order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the
Respondent No. 2 District Magistrate,
Kishanganj in Encroachment Appeal Case
Patna High Court CWJC No.9890 of 2018(6) dt.22-01-2026
2/5
No. 4 of 1996: Rabindra Kumar Sinha Vs.
Nagar Parishad, Kishanganj and others
whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by
the petitioner was dismissed contrary to the
mandate of law and legal proposition
without considering the last Survey Report;
(ii) to issue a consequential writ of
mandamus directing and commanding the
respondents to restore the land situated at
Circle: Kishanganj, Mauza: Kasba
Kutubganj, Thana No. 460, M.S. Khata No.
08, Municipal Survey Plot No. 35/46, Ward
No. 13, Municipality Holding No. 77 (Old),
to an extent of 85 square feet, construction
whereof was held to be illegal on the ground
of encroachment of public road which was
demolished by the petitioner in the year
1996 itself in view of constraints imposed by
the Municipality in the demolition drive;
(iii) to direct the Respondents to suitably
compensate this petitioner for the illegality
committed by them which led to demolition
Patna High Court CWJC No.9890 of 2018(6) dt.22-01-2026
3/5
of the part of the house of the petitioner;
(iv) to any other relief or relief (s) which the
petitioner may be found entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The petitioner owns a piece of land in the township
of Kishanganj and claims that when the encroachment drive was
carried out by the District Administration in the year 1996 based
on 1910 survey report. Thereafter, he on his own, demolished
85 sq.ft. area to prevent damage of rest of his existing building.
However, the contention is that the said land belongs to him
which is part of 06 kathas that the family owns. The further
claim is that following the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9119 of
1996 (Sanjeev Prasad & Ors. vs. the State and Ors.), the
survey report of the year1986 be taken into account instead of
1910.
4. The matter, ultimately, went before the Collector,
Kishanganj who after hearing the parties in Encroachment
Appeal Case No. 4 of 1996 (Rabindra Kumar Sinha Vs.
Nagar Parishad, Kishanganj & Ors.) held that the petitioner
wants to take benefit of the order passed by the Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9119 of 1996 but actually illegal
encroachment was made on 85 sq.ft. of land which now stands
Patna High Court CWJC No.9890 of 2018(6) dt.22-01-2026
4/5
removed and the same is justified. The appeal was accordingly,
dismissed which followed the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this
Court to the typed copy of Khatiyan of 1986 to show that he
owns 06 kathas of land and by way of supplementary affidavit,
the petitioner has stated that the portion that was demolished is
part of the 06 kathas of land.
6. Counter affidavits have come on behalf of the
respondents and the learned State Counsel has taken this Court
to paragraph-11 to submit that the 85 sq.ft. of land was
encroached by him which has now stands removed after the
special drive of removal was conducted.
7. This Court has taken note of the fact that area was
cleared by the petitioner himself though stand is that to save the
building from getting damaged, he took the extreme steps and
now wants its restoration.
8. Further, the petitioner claims that the structure is
existing there pursuant to the sanctioned plan and the family is
paying rent receipt regularly to the Kishanganj Nagar Parishad.
In that background, this Court wanted to go through the
sanctioned dues as also the rent receipts. Unfortunately, both
are missing from the petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9890 of 2018(6) dt.22-01-2026
5/5
09. The petitioner claims 74 sq.ft. of the land from
which encroachment has voluntary been removed by him, the
State on the other hand disputes the same and records that as
per the year 1910 survey, it is the State property. Clearly,
disputed questions of facts are there which can at best be
adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.
10. Both the parties are free to agitate the matter
before a competent Civil Court with regard to the aforesaid 74
sq.ft.
11. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the Collector, Kishanganj. The writ petition
is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…