Patna High Court
Jasumati DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the appellant had been duly notified and heard, so the principle of natural justice was not violated, and the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Summary
Jasumati Devi appealed against a single judge’s order that directed the Circle Officer, Purnahiya to act on a land‑allocation dispute without issuing her notice. She claimed a breach of natural justice for not being heard. The High Court examined the record and found that a notice had indeed been served and that she had appeared before the Circle Officer on several dates, ultimately being heard before the final order on 15‑06‑2025. The Court held that factual disputes about notice are not within the scope of a Letters Patent Appeal and that the appellant has alternative remedies under law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the lower court left undisturbed.
Issues considered
- The appellant was denied notice and an opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.
- Whether a Letters Patent Appeal can entertain disputes of fact regarding service of notice.
- Whether the appellant can challenge the final order of the Circle Officer through other remedies.
Subjects
- natural justice
- notice
- hearing
- Letters Patent Appeal
- land encroachment
- administrative law
- remedial jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.474 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12486 of 2023
======================================================
Jasumati Devi W/o Jagarnath Ram, Resident of Village- Kashopur, P.O.-
Bairiya, P.S.- Purnahiya, District- Sheohar (P.S. name wrongly furnished in
the writ petition)
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and
Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. (Respondent no. 1
wrongly described in the writ petition as The State of Bihar through
Additional Chief Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of
Bihar).
2. The District Collector, Sheohar. (Bihar as described in the writ is not
required)
3. The Additional Collector, Sheohar. (Respondent no. 3, Additional Collector,
Purnahiya wrongly described in the writ).
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheohar. (Respondent no. 4, The Sub Divisional
Officer, Purnahiya wrongly described in Writ).
5. The Circle Officer, Purnahiya Anchal, Sheohar.
6. Reeta Devi, W/o Umesh Ram, resident of village - Kashopur, P.O. - Bairiya,
P.S. Purnahiya, District- Sheohar( Village and P.S- Wrongly described in the
writ petition).
7. Surji Devi, W/o Chandeshwar Ram, Resident of Village- Kashopur, P.O. -
Bairiya, P.S.- Purnahiya, District - Sheohar (village and P.S. wrongly
described in the writ petition)
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12)
For the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. Sameer Sawarn, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 23-02-2026
Patna High Court L.P.A No.474 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
2/5
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellant, Jasumati Devi challenging the order dated 24.02.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12486 of
2023.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by one Reeta
Devi and another namely, Surji Devi, in which the appellant was
Respondent No. 6 and following reliefs was sought for:
“I. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus direction to the Respondent
authorities to secure the possession of
the land of the petitioners which was
allotted them under the scheme of,
Government of Bihar.
II. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent
authorities to restrain the private
respondent who are encroaching the
Land of the Petitioners by using man
and muscle power.
III. For a direction to the respondent to
refrain from victimizing the petitioners.
IV. For any other relief or reliefs to which
the petitioner may be found entitle to in
the facts and circumstances of the case
beside, as also the interim relief during
pendency of the writ application.”
3. The learned Single Judge has been pleased to
dispose of the matter on 24.02.2025 without issuing notice to
the appellant, who was the Respondent No. 6, with the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.474 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
3/5
following direction:
“8. Considering the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the writ
application is disposed of with a direction
to the Circle Officer, Purnahiya to take a
decision in accordance with the direction
of the District Magistrate as contained in
Memo No. 459 dated 12-8-2021 within a
period of two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, if
the direction contained in Memo No. 459
dated 12-8-2021 issued by the Collector,
Sheohar, has not been challenged before
any superior forum.”
4. The main ground that has been taken by the
appellant/respondent No. 6 to the writ petition is that no
opportunity of hearing was provided to her while passing the
impugned order and therefore, it suffers from non-compliance of
the principle of natural justice. When the matter was taken up on
08.01.2026 after noting down the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant, we made a query to the learned
counsel for the State as to whether the Circle Officer, Purnahiya
has proceeded as per the order of this Court and whether any
notice has been issued to the appellant Jasumati Devi, the
learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 has filed the
supplementary counter affidavit wherein in paragraph nos. 8 and
9, it is stated as follows:
“8. That following the due process of law, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.474 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
4/5
encroached land was vacated and
possession was restored to the settled
beneficiaries on 15.06.2025.
9. That regarding the Appellant's claim of
lack of notice, it is submitted that this
office has subsequently issued notice to
the Appellant, Jasumati Devi, for the
adjudication of rival claims as per the
observations of this Hon’ble Court.”
5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that no notice has been issued to the appellant,
however the order sheet of the Circle Officer, Purnahiya has
been annexed to such affidavit, which shows that the appellant
remained present on 29.03.2025 and made her submission and
thereafter, the matter was taken up on 19.04.2025, 30.04.2025,
08.05.2025, 09.05.2025, 26.05.2025 and 15.06.2025. On
15.06.2025, the final order was passed. The notice, which has
been issued to the appellant, has also been annexed to the
supplementary counter affidavit. Though the learned counsel for
the appellant disputed the same but since disputed question of
fact are not likely to be adjudicated in this Letters Patent Appeal
and from the order sheet, it appears that the appellant had
already entered her appearance and she was heard and
moreover, against the final order passed by the Circle Officer,
Purnahiya, the alternative remedy is available to challenge the
same. It is open to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy
Patna High Court L.P.A No.474 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
5/5
in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed
of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 25.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.