Patna High Court
Jivachh RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The selection of the site for a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is an exclusive executive matter, and the District Magistrate's order is valid; therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Jivachh Ray, sought a No Objection Certificate for constructing a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on land identified by a Gram Sabha resolution, challenging the District Magistrate's order that approved a different site. After the writ petition was dismissed and the District Magistrate rejected his representation, Ray filed a Letters Patent Appeal. The Court examined prior decisions, notably Krishna Devo Kumar v. State of Bihar, which held that site selection for Panchayat buildings is an exclusive executive function of the Gram Panchayat and the State Government. The Court also noted a 30.08.2022 Panchayati Raj Department notification granting the District Magistrate final authority. Finding no perversity or error in the lower court's order and affirming the executive's exclusive jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the judiciary can intervene in the selection of the site for a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan.
- Whether a Gram Sabha resolution is binding on the State Executive in matters of Panchayat building location.
- Whether the District Magistrate's order rejecting the appellant's representation is perverse or illegal.
Subjects
- Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan
- site selection
- executive jurisdiction
- Gram Sabha resolution
- No Objection Certificate
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Panchayati Raj
- judicial review
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.818 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12078 of 2025
======================================================
Jivachh Ray, son of Chalitar Ray, resident of Village- Maheyan, P.O.- Malpur,
Police Station- Patepur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Vaishali.
3. The Block Development Officer, Patepur, Vaishali.
4. The Circle Officer, Patepur, District- Vaishali.
5. Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Patna through its President.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Jata Shankar Jha, Advocate
Mr. M. Alam, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Mohan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Additional Advocate General (7)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 02-02-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by appellant
Jivachh Ray challenging the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.12078 of
2025 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.
2. The writ-petition was filed by the appellant to
quash the order of the learned District Magistrate, Vaishali
(Hajipur) as contained in Memo No.1405 dated 30.05.2025 by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.818 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
2/8
which the representation of the appellant dated 26.04.2025 was
rejected. It was further prayed in the writ petition for issuing a
direction to the respondents to give No Objection for
constructing Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan pursuant to the decision
of Aam Sabha dated 26.01.2024.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 31.01.2022, a
meeting of Aam Sabha was held wherein the earlier proposed
site over Khata No.1404, Plot No.4761 for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was cancelled. According to the writ-
petitioner, no resolution was ever passed by the then Gram
Sabha for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan over such
plot and the Mukhiya in his own interest has given such
proposal. It is the further case of the writ-petitioner that on
10.02.2022 again the meeting of Aam Sabha of the Gram
Panchayat was held and a decision was taken to construct the
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan over the land of Khata No.1007,
Khesra No.2212 which stood recorded in the name of Mahanth
Ram Charan Das. The writ-petitioner requested the Circle
Officer, Patepur for taking No Objection from the Religious
Trust Board for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan. The
Circle Officer, Patepur by his letter dated 06.06.2024, requested
the President of the Bihar Religious Trust Board to give No
Patna High Court L.P.A No.818 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
3/8
Objection for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan over the
land in question and the writ-petitioner also submitted
representation to the District Magistrate, Vaishali on 11.06.2024.
It is the further case of the writ-petitioner that the villagers again
submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, Vaishali on
28.01.2024 to grant permission for construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan over Plot No.2212 and to cancel the earlier No
Objection which was given over Plot No.4761. Since the
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the writ petition did not give No
Objection, the writ-petitioner approached this Court for a
direction to the respondents to give No Objection for
construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan pursuant to the
decision of the Gram Sabha dated 26.01.2024 and to restrain the
respondents to construct Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan over Plot
No.4761, Khata No.1404. The said writ petition was disposed of
vide order dated 22.04.2025 and liberty was granted to the writ-
petitioner to file a detailed representation before the District
Magistrate who shall decide the same by passing a reasoned and
speaking order. The representation was filed by the writ-
petitioner before the concerned authority i.e. District Magistrate,
Vaishali on 26.04.2025 and the matter was heard on different
dates and the report was called for from the Circle Officer and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.818 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
4/8
Block Development Officer, Patepur who also submitted the
report and ultimately the learned District Magistrate vide order
dated 30.05.2025 rejected the representation of the writ-
petitioner and came to hold that land appertaining to Plot
No.4761, Khata No.1404 is proper for construction of
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan. The case of the writ-petitioner that
no reason has been assigned and no finding has been given by
the learned District Magistrate to take such a decision, was
impugned in the case.
4. The learned Singe Judge considering the ratio laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Krishna Devo Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., decided
on 23.02.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3280 of 2024, wherein it
was held that so far as the construction of Panchayat Sarkar
Bhawan is concerned, the same is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat and a decision as to its situs
lies entirely within the domain of the Panchayat concerned and
the State Government has exclusive jurisdiction to take a
decision in this regard and since the State Government has the
exclusive jurisdiction to take a decision in this regard, dismissed
the writ petition.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.818 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
5/8
respondents by one Prabhat, Circle Officer, Patepur, Vaishali, it
is stated that several decisions have been rendered by this Court
that the question of location and construction of Panchayat
Bhawan is a matter of Executive policy and judicial interference
is not warranted. It has been further held that the location of
Panchayat Bhawan is for the Executive to decide and not for the
Court to supplant its opinion and it shall be wholly inappropriate
exercise of public interest jurisdiction to usurp the executive
power to decide the location of the Panchayat Bhawan. In the
counter affidavit it is further stated that the resolution of the
Gram Sabha is only recommendatory in nature and it is not
binding and the final authority vests with the Executive which
has been upheld in the case of Bhup Narayan Thakur, which
is a Division Bench decision and also it was re-affirmed in the
case of Prahlad Kumar Singh in the year 2025. It is further
stated in the counter affidavit that since one plot has already
been finalized by the competent authority after enquiry and the
tender process has been initiated for construction of the
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, there was no occasion for granting
any further No Objection for another plot in respect of the same
project. Once the site has been duly approved and tender
floated, the question of issuing another NOC does not arise. It is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.818 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
6/8
further stated that in compliance of the order passed by this
Court, the District Magistrate, Vaishali duly heard the appellant,
the local officials and all the stakeholders and thereafter passed
a reasoned and speaking order rejecting the representation of the
writ-petitioner. It is further stated that the alternative land
suggested through Gram Sabha resolution belongs to a Mahanth
and was not registered with the Religious Trust Board thereby
creating a legal and ownership complications and that in
absence of land at Panchayat Headquarters, suitable
Government land in any other part of the Panchayat can be
selected by the Executive Body, which in the present case has
already been done and the land that was finalized was found to
be more suitable, undisputed and accessible for construction,
whereas the proposed site submitted by the appellant was
private and likely to create future disputes. Accordingly, the
learned District Magistrate considering all the relevant aspects,
rejected the representation of the appellant. It is further
highlighted in the counter affidavit that the principle of audi
alteram partem has been fully complied with and opportunity of
hearing has been given to the appellant as well as the other
stakeholders. It is further highlighted that when the District
Magistrate, Vaishali while deciding the representation of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.818 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
7/8
appellant considered the reports of the Circle Officer, Block
Development Officer, the resolution of the Gram Sabha, the
departmental guidelines as well as the earlier proposal already
finalized for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan over Plot
No.4761, Khata No.1404, Mauza: Malpur and given a detailed
reasons, there cannot be any illegality in the same to be
interfered with.
6. The learned Advocate General also placed the
notification of the Panchayati Raj Department, State of Bihar
dated 30.08.2022 wherein also it is highlighted that in the matter
of selection of site for Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, the District
Magistrate has the final say over the matter.
7. After going through the pleadings and the stand
taken by the State Government in the counter affidavit, we are
of the view that there is no perversity in the order of the learned
Single Judge and since the scope of interference in the Letters
Patent Appeal is within a narrow compass and it is a corrective
jurisdiction which should be used rarely to correct errors, if any
made, and we find no perversity or error in the impugned order,
we are not inclined to grant any relief to the appellant in this
Letters Patent Appeal.
8. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands
Patna High Court L.P.A No.818 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
8/8
dismissed.
9. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Nani Tagia, J)
Siddharth
Sagar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…