Patna High Court
Vinit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, directing the petitioners to prefer an appeal to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms as mandated by Section 7 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
Summary
The petitioners, Vinit Kumar and Amit Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a mutation/jamabandi order (Mutation Case No. 2851 of 2023‑24) issued by the Circle Officer, Bihariganj, which granted land rights to respondent Sarvesh Kumar Singh. The State contended that the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 provides a specific appeal route to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) and that the High Court should not entertain the writ. The Court examined Section 6 (procedure for disposal of mutation cases) and Section 7 (right of appeal) of the Act and held that any aggrieved party must first prefer an appeal to the DCLR within the statutory period. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the writ and approach the DCLR within two weeks, directing that the DCLR hear the matter on merit. The writ petition was therefore disposed without adjudicating the substantive claim.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 prescribes a specific statutory appeal mechanism.
- Whether the petitioners are required to first prefer an appeal to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms under Section 7 of the Act before approaching the High Court.
- Whether any limitation question affects the petitioners’ right to seek relief in this writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 — s. 6, 7
Subjects
- mutation
- jamabandi
- land reforms
- appeal jurisdiction
- Article 226
- limitation
- Bihar Land Mutation Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9937 of 2026
======================================================
1. Vinit Kumar, Son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Mahto, Resident of Village-
Bihariganj, P.S.-Bihariganj, District-Madhepura, Bihar.
2. Amit Kumar, Son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Mahto, Resident of Village-
Bihariganj, P.S.-Bihariganj, District-Madhepura, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.
4. The Circle Officer, Bihariganj, Madhepura.
5. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Birendra Kumar Singh, Resident of
village -Mohanpur Nishaf, P.S- Bihariganj, District- Madhepura.
6. Rajesh Mahto, Son of Late Bindeshwari Mahto @ Bindeshwari Noniya,
Resident of village- Sheikhpura Ward No. 10, P.S-Bihariganj, District-
Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Ruchi Mandal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (23)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have directly approached this Court
assailing the mutation/jamabandi in Mutation Case No. 2851 of
2023-24, whereby Circle Officer, Bihariganj, Madhepura has
illegally created mutation/jamabandi pertaining to land situated
at Thana No. 231, Anchal Bihariganj, Khata No. 1, Plot no.
1284, in favour of respondent No. 5.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9937 of 2026 dt.09-07-2026
2/4
3. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State submits that there is specific provision of appeal
under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, so the petitioners
should prefer appeal before the D.C.L.R., Madhepura against
the order of Circle Officer, Bihariganj Madhepura.
4. The Court finds force in the submission so
advanced on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the
State. Section 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 lays
down procedure for disposal of mutation case by the Circle
Officer of the concerned Circle. The order passed by the Circle
Officer under Section 6 of the Act is to be appealed in terms of
provisions as provided in Chapter VI of the Act (supra) which
prescribes provision of appeal under Section 7 of the Act :-
“7. Appeal.-[(1) The party aggrieved by the order
of the Circle Officer or against Pre-Mutation
Revenue Sketch Map approved by the Circle
Officer shall appeal to Deputy Collector Land
Reforms (DCLR) within 30 days from the date of
order/approval.]
(2) The Land Reforms Deputy Collector may
condone the delay in filing appeals provided he is
satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for the
delay.
(3) The Land Reforms Deputy Collector shall not
pass any order modifying, altering or setting aside
the order appealed against unless the concerned
parties concerned have been given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard.
(4) The time limit for the disposal of a mutation
Patna High Court CWJC No.9937 of 2026 dt.09-07-2026
3/4
appeal shall be thirty (30) working days from the
date of the filing of the mutation appeal.”
The aforementioned section mandates that any person,
so aggrieved by the order of the Circle Officer passed in
mutation case, shall approach the D.C.L.R. of the district
assailing the order passed by Circle Officer. Section 7 Clause (1)
(2)(4) lays down the comprehensive procedure for deciding such
appeals so preferred against the order rejecting or allowing the
mutation before the D.C.L.R.
5. In view of this definite and statutory provision of
appeal to be preferred before the D.C.L.R. of the concerned
district, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to
withdraw this application with liberty to approach the D.C.L.R.,
Madhepura against the mutation/jamabandi passed by the Circle
Officer, Bihariganj in Mutation Case No. 2851 of 2023-24
within a period of two weeks henceforth. If such an appeal is
preferred on behalf of the petitioners, within a period of two
weeks, the D.C.L.R. is duty bound to accept the appeal and
decide the same on the merit after having issued notice to all the
concerned and having heard all the parties, having of interest in
the aforesaid proceeding within a further period of six weeks
therefrom.
6. It goes without saying that if any question of limitation
Patna High Court CWJC No.9937 of 2026 dt.09-07-2026
4/4
arises before the competent authority, the same shall be
considered taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners
were pursuing the issue before this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
7. Thus the writ petition stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
8. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand/s
disposed off. .
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Saurabh.kr/
Prakash-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.07.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.