Patna High Court
Mahesh SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the petitioner must seek relief in the appropriate civil forum.
Summary
Mahesh Singh filed a writ petition seeking an injunction against the construction of a Panchayat Bhavan on land he claims is raiyati (Khata No. 451) and has been in his family’s uninterrupted possession for over 50 years, with rent receipts issued in his uncle’s name. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the land was recorded in the Khatian as "Gairmajarua Malik" and therefore belonged to the State, finding no illegality in its selection for the Bhavan. On appeal, the petitioner argued that a mere entry of "Gairmajarua Malik" does not establish state ownership and cited precedents that long‑standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the State without a civil suit. The Court observed that the documents before it did not demonstrate any perversity and that the petitioner must present further evidence in a competent civil forum. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for relief.
Issues considered
- Whether land recorded as "Gairmajarua Malik" is state property that can be taken for a Panchayat Bhavan without compensation.
- Whether a long‑standing jamabandi can be cancelled by the State without filing a civil suit.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the High Court for restraining the construction.
Subjects
- rai yati land
- jamabandi
- state acquisition
- public purpose
- writ petition
- compensation
- land ownership
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.112 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.462 of 2025
======================================================
Mahesh Singh Son of Ramsudit resident of Village- Baghakoll, Police Station
Maker, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Saran at Chapra.
4. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
5. The Circle Officer, Block Maker, District Saran at Chapra.
6. The Halka Karmchari, Block Maker, District Saran at Chapra.
7. The Maker Gram Panchayat, Baghakoll Block, Maker, District- Saran at
Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate-05
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4 06-04-2026 The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging
the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
in C.W.J.C. No. 462 of 2025 in dismissing the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-
petitioner, Mahesh Singh, seeking a direction to the respondents
for restraining them from constructing Panchayat Bhavan in
Baghakoll Police Station under Maker Block, District Saran at
Patna High Court L.P.A No.112 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
2/5
Chapra on raiyati plot of the petitioner appertaining to Khata no.
451, Survey plot no. 1636, area 36 Katha for which upto date
rent receipts are being issued in the name of the uncle of the
petitioner, without acquiring the land and without paying any
compensation to the petitioner.
The petitioner stated in the writ petition that the land
of the petitioner bearing Khata no. 451 stands recorded in
Khatian as “ Gairmajarua Malik” and in the remarks column,
the name of the grandfather of the petitioner is mentioned and
that he filed representation before the Circle Officer, Maker,
Saran and Panchayat Secretary, Baghakol Maker, District Saran
at Chapra and other authorities regarding the illegal construction
of the Panchayat Bhavan with all the relevant documents.
However, he has got no relief and the authorities concerned had
paid no heed towards the grievance of the petitioner or
considered that the ancestors of the petitioner were in
uninterrupted peaceful possession over the land since before
vesting of Jamindari for which they paid rent to the Jamindar
and thereafter, the petitioner came in peaceful possession of the
same for which he is also paying rent till the date, to the State of
Bihar and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as
sought for.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.112 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
3/5
3. By the order dated 21.01.2025, the learned Single
Judge has been pleased to hold that since the Panchayat Sarkar
Bhavan is being constructed on the land, which has been
recorded in Khatian as “Gairmajarua Malik”, therefore, no
illegality was found in the order and in the selection of that
particular land for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhavan.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the learned Single Judge has misdirected himself in appreciating
that by simple entry in the Khatian as “Gairmajarua Malikan”
does not establish that the said land belonged to Government
and since a long standing Jamabandi is still running in the name
of the uncle of the appellant, which was suggestive of the fact
that the nature of the land was raiyati, the learned Single Judge
should have considered the prayer of the petitioner. He also
placed the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Anju
Kumari and Ors. -Vs.- State of Bihar through Principal
Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms and
Ors., reported in (2023) 4 PLJR 484 by the learned Single
Judge, wherein the Court observed as follows:-
“54. This Court in the case of
Harendranath Tiwari v. State of Bihar,
1987 Supp SCC 56 has held that long
Standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled
by the state by simply doubting the
Jamabandi. The State has to file a Civil
Patna High Court L.P.A No.112 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
4/5
Suit for cancelling long standing
Jamabandi.
56. In view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, it
is clear that the petitioners are in
possession of the land and there is long
standing jamabandi of more than 50
years and the petitioners cannot be
denied compensation of their land by the
State by taking steps for cancellation of
jamabandi. The State could have taken
steps for challenging the Jamabandi of
the petitioner by filing a civil suit and no
other mode is available to the State to
challenge the jamabandi and possession
of the petitioners.”
5. We are of the view that on the basis of the
document on which the order has been passed, it cannot be said
that there is any perversity in the same. If there are other
documents with the petitioner to establish that he was in
continuous possession of the land in question or his ancestors
were in possession of the same and there were rent receipts
available with him, then all those aspects can be highlighted by
filing appropriate case before the appropriate forum of
competent jurisdiction, which would consider the claim of the
petitioner in accordance with law. The relief sought for, cannot
be adjudicated, unless the documents are considered and the
evidence are adduced by the parties, therefore, it is open to the
petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.112 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
5/5
6. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands
disposed off, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the
competent Court for seeking necessary relief, in accordance
with law.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U
Checking your session…