Patna High Court
Md IdrishversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, holding that the petitioners’ delay, laches, and failure to join necessary parties justified the dismissal and that the State’s acquisition under Section 15(1) remains valid.
Summary
The appellants, Md Idrish and Md Bechan, purchased land that had been declared surplus under the Bihar Land Reform (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and sought a writ directing the Collector to delete the land from the 1 June 1990 Gazette notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act. The State respondents contended that a land‑ceiling proceeding had been duly initiated, the land was declared surplus, and acquired by the State through a notification dated 6 June 1990, published under Section 15(1). The Single Judge dismissed the writ on grounds of inordinate delay, laches, and non‑joinder of parties who had been settled under Section 27 of the Act. On appeal, the High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley* (2024) 15 SCC 215, affirmed that delay and laches alone justify dismissal of a writ petition and that the State’s acquisition remains valid. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the writ petition upheld the dismissal.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition challenging the State’s acquisition of surplus land is maintainable despite the lapse of time and alleged delay and laches.
- Whether the non‑joinder of persons settled under Section 27 of the Bihar Land Reform Act warrants dismissal of the writ petition.
- Whether the State’s acquisition of the land under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1961 can be set aside by the petitioners.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Land ceiling
- Surplus land
- Writ petition
- Delay
- Laches
- Non‑joinder of parties
- Section 15(1)
- Bihar Land Reform Act
- Acquisition of land
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.569 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3530 of 2017
======================================================
1.Md Idrish S/o Late Md. Sadik Hussain @ Md. Siddique Resident of
Chiraiya Rehka, P.S. K. Nagar, District – Purnia.
2.Md. Bechan@ Md. Hanif, S/o Late. Chhabu Hussain, Both nos. 1 and 2 are
resident of Chiraiya Rehka, P.S.-K. Nagar, District-Purnia.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector, Purnia
3. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Purnia
4. The Circle Officer, K. Nagar, District - Purnia
5. Smt. Manorma Devi W/o Late Kumar Sachidanand Singh Resident of
Shrinagar Dyodhih, P.O-Shrinagar,P.S.-K. Nagar, District - Purnia.
6. Smt. Pramila Ramaji W/o Late Prama Nand Singh Resident of Shrinagar
Dyodhih, P.O-Shrinagar,P.S.-K. Nagar, District - Purnia.
7. Bibi Ahmedi Khatoon W/o Md. Abdul Aziz Resident of Village-Khutti
Dhunaili, P.S.-K.Nagar, District-Purnia.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Addl. Advocate General (12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 25-02-2026
This LPA has been filed by the appellants challenging
the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
in CWJC No. 3530 of 2017.
2. The writ petition was filed seeking for the
following relief(s):-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.569 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026
2/4
“For issuance of a writ or writs, direction or
directions to the Collector, Purnia to delete the lands
described hereinafter in this application from the
District Purnia Gazette Notification no. 4 dated 1.6.1990
published u/s 15 (1) of the Land Ceiling Act, as the land
so purchased by the petitioners have been declared
surplus land of the landholder Sri Mati Sidhi Ramaji
which have been sold by her heirs and legal
representatives in the year 1960 and 1967 without any
intention to defeat the provisions/Land of Land Ceiling
Act.
The land so declared surplus have done
without initiating any been proceeding u/s 5 (1) (iii) of
the Land Ceiling Act by the authorities and without
setting aside the sale deed, and without giving any
opportunity to the petitioners to be heard, though the
petitioners have been coming in physical cultivating
possession over the land from their date of purchases,
got their names mutated in the Sirista of the State, paid
rent and got rent receipts whereof issued in their
favour.”
3. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed the counter
affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows:-
“4.That the averments made in the instant writ
application which are not specifically admitted and are
beyond/contrary to the records of the case are hereby
denied.
5.That a land ceiling proceeding vide Land Ceiling
Case No. 01/1983-84 was duly initiated against the land
holder Kumar Ganganand Singh and after the death of
Kumar Ganganand Singh his widow Siddhi Ramaji was
substituted. The subject property appertaining to Mauja
Khutti Dhunaili, Khata No. 762, Khesra No. 7
alongwith other land was also part of that land ceiling
proceeding. Subsequently after duly hearing the parties
and perusing the record the Collector under the act
declared the land in question as surplus land and final
publication of the draft under section 11 (1) of Bihar
Land Reform (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition
of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was published on
27/03/1989 vide Extraordinary notification no. 36.
6. That subsequently after following due procedure
Patna High Court L.P.A No.569 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026
3/4
the subject property was acquired by the State vide
notification no. 2766 dated 06/06/1990 published U/s
15 (1) of the Act in the Extraordinary issue no. 04 dated
01/06/1990.”
4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties
and going through the pleadings has been pleased to hold as
follows:-
“3. The counter affidavit of the State respondent
clearly shows that the acquisition took place and the
notification was published under Section 15(1) of ‘the
Act’ in the extraordinary gadget on 01.06.1990. The
writ petition has been filed in the year 2017 and the
stand of the State is that the land in question stands
settled with the different persons under Section 27 of
the Act by way of red card and they have not even
been impleaded as party respondents.
4. In that background, the writ petition
stands dismissed, both on the ground of delay and
laches as also the non-joinder of necessary parties.”
5. 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 Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley & Ors, reported
in (2024) 15 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.569 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026
4/4
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.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
upon considering the stand taken by the learned counsel for the
State in the counter affidavit, as well as the reasoning assigned
by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition
on the grounds of delay and laches and non-joinder of necessary
party, the order appears to be fully justified, and there cannot be
said to be any perversity or illegality in the same.
7. Accordingly, the present L.P.A stands dismissed.
8. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.02.2026.
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…