Patna High Court
Shailendra Kumar Singh,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The contempt application is dismissed as infructuous because the underlying order is already under judicial review.
Summary
The petitioner, Shailendra Kumar Singh, filed a contempt application alleging that the Collector of Khagaria violated a status‑quo order dated 25‑03‑2025, which required the land in dispute to remain unchanged until the writ petition (CWJC No.2757 of 2025) was finally decided. The State argued that the Collector had already decided the matter against the petitioner in a separate miscellaneous case (No.7/2025‑26) and that the writ petition itself contained an interim application challenging that decision, rendering the contempt suit moot. The court examined whether the alleged breach of the status‑quo order gave rise to a maintainable contempt proceeding. It held that because the underlying dispute was already being adjudicated and the Collector’s order was under review, the contempt application was infructuous. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The Collector’s order violated the status‑quo order dated 25‑03‑2025
- Whether a contempt petition is maintainable when the underlying order is under review in a writ proceeding
Subjects
- contempt of court
- status quo order
- land settlement
- writ jurisdiction
- administrative law
- military personnel
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1974 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2757 of 2025
======================================================
Shailendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Triveni Singh, resident of Village and
Post - Naya Gaon, Siriya Tola, Kabaila, Kabela, P.S. Parbatta, District -
Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Shri Amrit Lal Meena, Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna
2. Shri Dipak Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
revenue and land Reform, Patna, Bihar.
3. Sri Amit Kumar Pandey, The Collector cum District Magistrate, Khagaria
4. Smt. Aarti, Additional Collector, Khagaria
5. Shri Rakesh Ranjan, District Panchayti Raj Officer, Khagaria
6. Sri Pramath Mayank, BPRO, Parbatta, Khagaria
7. Smt. Sunanda Kumari, SDO, Gogri, Khagaria
8. Smt. Nidhi Kumari, DCLR, Gogri, Khagaria
9. Smt. Mona Gupta, Circle Officer, Parbatta, Khagaria
10. Ram Binay Kumar, Mukhiya, Dariyapur Bhelwa, Panchayat Samiti, Parbatta
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Y.P. Sinha, AAG-7
Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to AAG-7
For O.P. No.10 : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
8 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC
to AAG-7 as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.
No.10.
2. Learned counsel for the State, at the outset, submits
that the instant contempt application has been filed alleging
violation of the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in CWJC
Patna High Court MJC No.1974 of 2025(8) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
No.2757 of 2025. It is next submitted that CWJC No.2757 of
2025 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the
authorities especially respondent no.3 (Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Khagaria) to make final settlement of the land in
dispute in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law in
pursuance of the government letters. It is submitted that status
quo, as existing as of date, shall be maintained over the land in
dispute until the writ application is finally adjudicated by this
Court was also recorded in the order dated 25.03.2025. It is
further submitted that since the order of status quo was violated,
as such, the instant contempt application came to be filed. It is
next submitted that the District Magistrate, Khagaria finally
decided the issue against the petitioner by holding that the land
which the petitioner was claiming by virtue of being a military
personnel cannot be settled in his favour for reasons recorded in
the order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Case
No.7/2025-26. It is next submitted that the petitioner assailed
the said order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Case
No.7/2025-26 by filing I.A. No.1/2025 in CWJC No.2757 of
2025. Learned counsel for the State next submits that since the
Collector has already decided the issue against the petitioner
and the petitioner has assailed the said order by filing an I.A. in
Patna High Court MJC No.1974 of 2025(8) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
the aforesaid writ application, as such, for the present, the
instant contempt application has become infructuous. It is also
submitted that in the event if the order of the Collector, which
has been assailed in I.A. No.1/2025 is upheld, whether contempt
would be maintainable and if the order of the Collector is set
aside, the same would give rise to a subsequent cause of action
for filing contempt or the State will assail the same before an
appropriate forum.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by
learned counsel for the State and thus, finds no merit in this
contempt application and the same is dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.