Patna High Court
Sushil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the writ petition is barred by delay and laches.
Summary
Sushil Kumar filed a writ petition seeking possession of 16½ decimal of land and compensation for 5½ decimal that were acquired by the State of Bihar in 1966‑67, alleging that the land lies outside the boundary of a government school and that no compensation was paid. The petition was filed only in 2023, more than five decades after the acquisition, and the State argued that the delay and laches barred the claim. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, noting disputed facts and the long lapse since the cause of action arose. On appeal, the Patna High Court upheld the dismissal, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mrinmov Maitv v. Chhanda Koley (2024) SCC 215, which emphasizes that writ courts may reject petitions filed after an unreasonable delay. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed and the writ petition remained barred.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches despite the absence of a fixed limitation period.
- Whether the appellant can claim possession or compensation for land acquired in 1966‑67 after a delay of over five decades.
- Whether the presence of disputed facts affects the writ court’s jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- delay
- laches
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- land acquisition
- compensation
- possession
- letters patent appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.217 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12858 of 2023
======================================================
Sushil Kumar S/o Late Rajendra Sharma, Resident of Vill.- Anatpur, Pargana
Okri, P.S.- Ghosi, Distt.- Jehanabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Jehanabad.
5. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Jehanabad.
6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Jehanabad.
7. The Circle Officer, Jehanabad.
8. The Circle Inspector, Jehanabad.
9. The Circle Amin, Jehanabad.
10. Zafar Imam S/o Late Gulam Naqavi Mukhtar, Resident of Mohalla- Pach
Mahala, P.O. and P.S.- Jehanabad, Distt.- Jehanabad.
11. Md. Zafir Son of Late Fakhruddin Dhunia, Resident of Mohalla- Pathakpuri,
P.S.- Jehanabad, Distt.- Jehanabad.
12. Md. Riyazuddin Son of Late Fakhruddin Dhunia, Resident of Mohalla-
Pathakpuri, P.S.- Jehanabad, Distt.- Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prashant Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 29-01-2026
Patna High Court L.P.A No.217 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
2/6
The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellant Sushil Kumar challenging the order dated 04.02.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12858 of
2023.
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant with
following prayer :-
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)
thereby commanding upon the
Respondents concerned to deliver the
possession of 16½ (10% + 6 ¼) decimal of
land of Khata no. 223, Plot no.- 690 at
Mouza- Makhdumpur Unta, Distt.-
Jehanabad to the petitioner which are still
parti land outside the boundary wall of
Govt. Girls Middle School, Jehanabad for
which 1.60 Acres of land had been
acquired by the State Govt. vide L.A. Case
no. 15/ 1966-67 but said 16½ decimal of
petitioner's land is lying parti and falls
outside the boundary wall of the school
without any utilization and without
payment of any compensation to the
petitioner.
(ii) For further directing the Respondents
to pay the Petitioner the compensation at
the new rate for rest 5 ½ decimal of
petitioner's land of Khata no. 223, Plot no.
690 at Mouza-Makhdumpur Unta, Distt.-
Jehanabad on which PCC Road is built
without any compensation paid to the
petitioner while acquiring the said piece of
land in L.A. Case no.- 15/1966-67.
(iii) For alternatively directing the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.217 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
3/6
Respondents to deliver the possession of
Vivah Bhawan built on 3 decimal in north
of land outside the boundary wall of the
school of Khata no.-223, Plot no.-690 at
Mouza- Makhdumpur Unta, Distt.-
Jehanabad in lieu of 5 ½ decimal of
Petitioner's land upon which PCC Road
has been constructed without any payment
of compensation to the Petitioner in LA.
Case no.- 15/1966-67.
(iv) For grant of any other relief (s) which
the Petitioner may be entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the
preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the State
has been pleased to hold as follows:-
“2. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State, at the outset, submits
that the writ application be dismissed on
the grounds of delay and laches. It is
further submitted that petitioner is not the
land owner rather had purchased the
land from one Md. Fakhruddin in the year
1958. It is further submitted that the land
in dispute was acquired vide L.A. Case
No. 15 of 1966-67 and since then the
petitioner never raised any objection, but
all of a sudden in the year 2008 started
raising objection. It is further submitted
that for the same dispute, one Jafar Imam
has filed C.W.J.C. No. 8210 of 2015 and
the same is pending adjudication, on the
ground that the land in dispute was gifted
to him by Md. Fakhruddin.
3. The learned State counsel next submits
Patna High Court L.P.A No.217 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
4/6
that whether the land was gifted to Jafar
Imam or the land was purchased by the
petitioner from Md. Fakhruddin is an
issue to be adjudicated by an authority
competent, but then for the present it is
submitted that the land was acquired in
the year 1066-67 and all of sudden in the
year 2023, the instant writ application
has been filed which amply demonstrates
that petitioner, at his leisure, is moving.
4. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner is not in a position
to rebut the submission of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State
that the land in question was acquired
vide L.A. Case No. 15 of 1966-67 and the
petitioner for the first time had moved
before this Court in the year 2023, as
such, the writ application is dismissed on
the grounds of delay and laches.”
4. There is no dispute on the basis of the averment. It
appears that the cause of action arose in 1966-67 and the writ
petition was filed in the year 2023 and moreover, it appears
from the pleadings of the writ petition that there are disputed
question of fact involved in the case.
5. The law is well settled that the writ Court can
dismiss a writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
With respect to the issue of delay and laches, the
issue is no more res integra rather the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Mrinmov Maitv vs. Chhanda Koley, (2024) 15
Patna High Court L.P.A No.217 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
5/6
SCC 215 has held that:
“11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no
doubt that no fixed period of limitation is
prescribed. However, when the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has
to be seen as to whether within a reasonable
time same has been invoked and even
submitting of memorials would not revive the
dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of
action which has had a natural death. In
such circumstances on the ground of delay
and laches alone, the appeal ought to be
dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-
suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is
guilty of delay and laches, the High Court
ought to dismiss the petition on that sole
ground itself, inasmuch as the writ courts are
not to indulge in permitting such indolent
litigant to take advantage of his own wrong.
It is true that there cannot be any waiver of
fundamental right but while exercising
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226,
the High Court will have to necessarily take
into consideration the delay and laches on
the part of the applicant in approaching a
writ court….”
6. In view of the limited scope of interference in the
Letters Patent Appeal and since we do not find there is any
perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge, we are not
inclined to interfere with the same.
7. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.217 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
6/6
8. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 30.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…