Patna High Court
Meera DeviversusThe State of Bihar through the Secretary of the Department of Animal Husnbandry and Fisheries
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed; the original order restraining interference with the petitioners’ Jalkars stands.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of the Kharnai Nadi and Til Juggadhar water bodies, filed a writ petition seeking a restraining order against the State of Bihar and its officials from interfering with their fishing rights and to quash a Parwana allegedly issued in favour of a private respondent. The Single Judge directed the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector and the District Fisheries Officer not to interfere with the petitioners’ private Jalkars pending the decree in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965, which had awarded them ownership. The State appealed the order by filing a Letters Patent Appeal, contending that the petitioners were denied a chance to file a counter‑affidavit, thereby violating natural justice. The High Court held that the petitioners were given an opportunity to file the counter‑affidavit, that no breach of natural justice occurred, and that a Letters Patent Appeal cannot expand beyond the pleadings and issues of the original writ petition. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the limited scope of intra‑court appeals and the doctrine of constructive res judicata, the Court found no error in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the original restraining order upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to allow the appellant to file a counter‑affidavit violated the principles of natural justice.
- Whether a Letters Patent Appeal can go beyond the pleadings, issues and material placed before the writ court.
- Whether the order restraining state officials from interfering with the petitioners’ Jalkars pending the decree in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965 is valid.
- Application of the doctrine of constructive res judicata to writ proceedings.
Subjects
- Letters Patent Appeal
- natural justice
- constructive res judicata
- writ jurisdiction
- fishing rights
- Parwana
- state interference
- Civil Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.157 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14526 of 2023
======================================================
Meera Devi Mantri, Naugachia Block Matshjivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd.
Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary of the Department of Animal
Husbandry and Fisheries Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector - cum- District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur.
4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Naugachia, District - Bhagalpur.
5. The District Fishery Officer - cum - Chief Executive Officer, Bhagalpur.
6. Ashok Kumar Singh S/o Late Ambika Prasad Singh
7. Hemant Kumar Sinha @ Hemant Kumar Singh, S/o Late Mathura Prasad
Singh
8. Rabin Kumar Singh S/o Late Arun Kumar Singh
9. Raj Kumar Singh S/o Late Krishna Kumar Prasad Singh
All S.L. Nos. 6 to 9 are R/o Village-Pakra, P.S. Naugachia, District-
Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 07-01-2026
Patna High Court L.P.A No.157 of 2025 dt.07-01-2026
2/6
This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No. 14526 of 2023. The writ petition was filed
by the present Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 with the following prayer:-
“(i) An appropriate writ, direction or order be
issued to restrain the respondents to interfere with the Jalkar
namely, Kharnai Nadi, and Til Juggadhar either by issuing
Parwana or any order or settlement as the Jalkars aforesaid
are owned by the petitioners. Respondent No. 6 be also
directed not to interfere with the physical possession of the
said Jalkar in any manner.
(ii) A further appropriate writ to quash the
Parwana if any issued, for the year 2023-2024 in favour of the
Respondent No. 6 (since the copies of alleged Parwana could
not be made available despite R.T.I.) and further a direction
be given to the Respondents authorities to provide protection
to the petitioners in exercise of their fishing right over the
Jalkars as aforesaid.
(iii) A further direction be given to the
Respondents to produce copy of Parwana if any, issued for the
year 2023-2024 in favour of Respondent No. 6 and thereafter
the said Parwana be quashed as the same is issued without
jurisdiction over the Jalkars in question.
(iv) Any other order, direction as this Hon’ble
Court considers apt and appropriate in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties,
observed as follows:-
“17. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court comes to a considered conclusion that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.157 of 2025 dt.07-01-2026
3/6
State by applying its might is disturbing the petitioners. The
authorities without challenging the judgment and decree
passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965 are settling the Jalkars in
favour of the private respondents continuously which amply
demonstrates that the authorities do not have any regards for
the orders passed by a Court of competent civil jurisdiction
rather it gives an impression that the authorities throws the
order of the Civil Court in dustbin, pleadings made at para 13
of the counter affidavit borders on contempt for the reason
that the State of Bihar was a party in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965
and the judgment and decree in the said title suit was passed
in the year 1973 on contest and the suit was decided in favour
of the petitioners herein and the State of Bihar never
challenged the said judgment and decree passed in Title Suit
No. 23 of 1965 before any superior forum but then after 51
years a plea has been taken that the State Authorities are
contemplating to file an appeal against the said judgment and
decree passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965 which amply
demonstrates the conduct of the respondent authorities, the
less said the better it is.
18. After considering the submissions made on
behalf of the parties, the Court directs the District Magistrate-
cum-Collector, Bhagalpur and the District Fisheries Officer-
cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bhagalpur not to interfere with
the private Jalkars of the petitioners till judgment and decree
passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1965 is in existence.”
3. The main ground that has been taken for challenging
the impugned judgment is that the appellant appeared in the writ
proceeding through the counsel on 15.01.2025 and sought some
time to file the counter-affidavit and, by order dated 15.01.2025,
the case was directed to be posted on 18.01.2025. However, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.157 of 2025 dt.07-01-2026
4/6
case was not listed on 18.01.2025 and it was listed on 21.01.2025
on which date, the writ application was disposed of and the
appellant did not get opportunity to file the counter-affidavit.
4. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that
the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the
appellant have been noted down by the learned Single Judge in
Paragraph No.16 and, even if time was granted to the learned
counsel for the appellant, she did not avail such opportunity and
filed the counter-affidavit. It cannot be said that in any manner, the
principle of natural justice has been flouted in this case. Moreover,
the observation of the learned Single Judge in the concluding
paragraph is that the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Bhagalpur
and the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Bhagalpur shall not interfere with the private Jalkars of the
petitioners till judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 23 of
1965 is in existence. When we posed a pertinent question to the
learned counsel that whether judgment and decree has been
challenged anywhere, the answer was in negative.
5. The scope of a Letters Patent Appeal is very limited
and it cannot be greater that the original Writ Petition. The
Appellant Court, while exercising intra-court appellate
jurisdiction, cannot go beyond the pleadings, issues and materials
Patna High Court L.P.A No.157 of 2025 dt.07-01-2026
5/6
which were placed before the learned Writ Court. At this juncture,
it is pertinent to take note of the judgment passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Netai Bag v. State of W.B., reported in (2000) 8
SCC 262, wherein it was observed as under:-
“13. …..The appeal before the Division Bench of
the High Court and in this Court being in continuation of the
original proceedings in the form of writ petition, cannot
enlarge the scope of inquiry at this belated stage…….”
6. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devilal Modi
v. STO, reported in 1964 SCC OnLine SC 17, has observed as
under:-
“9. ….. the rule of constructive res judicata which
is pleaded against him in the present appeal is in a sense a
somewhat technical or artificial rule prescribed by the Code
of Civil Procedure. This rule postulates that if a plea could
have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and
his opponent, he would not be permitted to take that plea
against the same party in a subsequent proceeding which is
based on the same cause of action; but basically, even this
view is founded on the same considerations of public policy,
because if the doctrine of constructive res judicata is not
applied to writ proceedings, it would be open to the party to
take one proceeding after another and urge new grounds
every time; and that plainly is inconsistent with
considerations of public policy to which we have just
referred.”
7. In view of the limited scope of interference in the
Letters Patent Appeal, since we find no palpable error on the face
Patna High Court L.P.A No.157 of 2025 dt.07-01-2026
6/6
of the records, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and
we are not accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that she had not been given any opportunity of hearing to
file the counter-affidavit. We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
8. Accordingly, the L.P.A. stands dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Sachin/Shailendr
a/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 09.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…