Patna High Court
Saroj Kumar Rakshit @ Nanu Da @ Saroj Rakshit @ Nanu BabaversusThe State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 bars the writ court from entertaining the petition, and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
Saroj Kumar Rakshit filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to set aside an order dated 30‑11‑2024 of the Divisional Commissioner that altered the disposition of temple land and also sought a mandamus to protect his possession. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Bihar Land Tribunal under Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 within four weeks. The petitioner appealed the dismissal via a Letters Patent Appeal, arguing that the order of the Divisional Commissioner was illegal and that the court could intervene despite the alternative remedy. The High Court examined the statutory provision and reiterated the settled principle that when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, a writ court should not entertain the petition. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. The Court advised the petitioner to file an application before the Tribunal and, if necessary, seek condonation of delay there.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when an alternative remedy under Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 is available.
- Whether the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 30‑11‑2024 is illegal and liable to be set aside by a writ court.
- Whether the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable in view of the limited scope of the appeal.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- certiorari
- mandamus
- alternative remedy
- land dispute
- Bihar Land Tribunal Act
- section 9(x)
- letters patent appeal
- civil jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.280 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2242 of 2025
======================================================
Saroj Kumar Rakshit @ Nanu Da @ Saroj Rakshit @ Nanu Baba Son of Late
Yogeshchand Rakshit, Resident of Village Kali Mandir Road, Kali Mandir,
Ward No. 23, Kali Bazar, P.S. - Araria, District- Araria (Bihar).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.
3. The D.C.L.R., Araria.
4. The C.O., Araria.
5. Madan Kumar Das Son of Late Pancham Das, Resident of Madhubani
Bazar, P.S. - K. Hat, District- Purnea, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Praveer Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12
Mr. Arun Bhagat, AC to AAG-12
For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Raju Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 07-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed challenging
the order dated 20.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge passed
in CWJC No. 2242 of 2025.
3. The writ petition was filed by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.280 of 2025 dt.07-01-2026
2/4
petitioner/appellant with the following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of
certiorari to set aside/quash the order dated
30.11.2024 passed in Land Dispute Appeal Case
No. 78/2023 by the respondent No. 2 whereby and
whereunder the learned Divisional Commissioner
has set aside the order of the Ld. D.C.L.R., Araria
dated-31.03.2023 passed in B.L.D.R. Case No.
07/22-23 and has further directed the D.C.L.R. to
earmark/carve out the Land that are being used for
Mahavir Mandir and Kali Mandir in terms of an
affidavit No. 1501/2024 filed by respondent No.5
and the rest of the land has been directed to be
handed over to the respondent No. 5 which is most
arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of settled
law that right, title and possession is not in the
ambit of a revenue court but the same has to be
decided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction as
contained in annexure-P/6 of this writ application.
(ii). For issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents not to
disturb in any manner the peaceful possession of
the petitioner over the temple land.
(iii). For issuance of any other writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions to grant
relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found
entitled to in the fact and circumstances of the
case.”
4. The learned Single Judge has, in the operative part
of the order, observed that in view of Section 9(x) of the Bihar
Patna High Court L.P.A No.280 of 2025 dt.07-01-2026
3/4
Land Tribunal Act 2009, since the petitioner has got an
alternative remedy, he can approach the learned Tribunal within
a period of four weeks.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
is no dispute that the matter can be agitated before the learned
Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has got power also to interfere
with the same. However, he submits that since there is palpable
illegality in the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the
Respondent No. 2 in Land Dispute Appeal Case No. 78/2023,
this Court can interfere with the same by exercising its writ
jurisdiction.
6. Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009
reads as under:
“9. Powers of the Tribunal.-(1) The Tribunal shall
have the power to entertain any application against
the final order passed by the Appropriate
Authorities under the Acts/Manuals, mentioned
below, within 90 days of such an order provided no
other forum of appeal or revision against the order
passed is provided in that Act/Manuals:
(i) xx xx xx
(ii) xx xx xx
(x) Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009.
7. In view of the settled position of law that when the
alternative efficacious remedy is available, the Writ Court
Patna High Court L.P.A No.280 of 2025 dt.07-01-2026
4/4
should not entertain the writ petition and in view of specific
provision available, we find no illegality in the impugned order.
Therefore, in view of the limited scope of this Letters Patent
Appeal, we are not inclined to entertain the same. Accordingly,
the Appeal stands dismissed.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that till date, no application has been filed before the
learned Tribunal as per the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge.
9. If the appellant is so advised, he can approach the
learned Tribunal and if any limitation application is filed for
condoning the delay, the same shall be considered by the learned
Tribunal in accordance with law, taking into account that the
appellant has not only approached the Writ Court but also filed
this letter patent appeal.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.01.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…