Patna High Court
Punyadev RaiversusThe State of Bihar through Sri Mihir Kumar Singh, the Additional Chief Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The contempt application is dismissed as it is frivolous and intended to pressure the court.
Summary
Petitioner Punyadev Rai filed a contempt application challenging the construction of a Panchayat building on land he claims belongs to his family. The High Court had earlier, on 12‑12‑2024, ordered a status‑quo to maintain the situation pending the writ case. Respondents contended that no construction had proceeded after that order. The Court held that the contempt petition was filed to exert undue pressure and to garner sympathy, and therefore was frivolous. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed, and the Court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for any fresh grievance.
Issues considered
- Whether the filing of the contempt application by the petitioner constitutes contempt of court after the status‑quo order.
- Whether any construction of the Panchayat building has taken place contrary to the court's order.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- status quo
- civil writ jurisdiction
- land dispute
- Panchayati Raj
- construction
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.352 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18891 of 2024
======================================================
Punyadev Rai son of Prabhu Rai, resident of Saphi, P.O.- Chhapiya, P.S.-
Mashrakh, District-Saran at Chapra-841417.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Sri Mihir Kumar Singh, the Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Sri Anand Sharma, The Director, Directorate of Panchayati Raj. Department
of Panchayati Raj. Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Sri Aman Sameer, The Collector -cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
4. Sri Yatendra Kumar Pal, The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saran at
Chapra.
5. Sri Narendra Kumar Singh, The Panchayati Raj Officer, Saran at Chapra.
6. Dr. Prerna Singh, The Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhaura, Saran.
7. Sri Bimal Kumar, The Chief Engineer, Department of Planning and
Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.
8. Sri Praveen Kumar, The Executive Engineer, Department of Planning and
Development, Saran at Chapra.
9. Sri Sumant Kumar, The Circle Officer, Mashrakh, Saran.
10. Sri Pankaj Kumar, The Block Development Officer, Mashrakh, Saran.
11. Akanksha, The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Mashrakh, Saran.
12. Sri Purushottam kumar, The Junior Engineer, Mashrakh, Saran.
13. Sri Anil Thakur, The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayati Raj, Arna, Mashrakh,
Saran.
14. Sri Rabindra Nath Rai, The Panchayat Secretary, Arna, Mashrakh, Saran.
15. Sri Ajay Kumar, The Station House Officer, Mashrakh P.S., District- Saran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Standing Counsel 18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 18-03-2026 The present M.J.C. application arises out of
C.W.J.C. No. 18891 of 2024 where following reliefs have been
Patna High Court MJC No.352 of 2025(3) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
sought by the petitioner:
“For issuance of appropriate writ(s),
order(s), direction (s), to the respondent authorities
to not built / construct the Panchayat Sarkar
Bhawan for Gram Panchayat Raj, Arna under the
Mashrakh Block/ Circle in the District of Saran
upon Plot No. 1561 under Khata No. 181 in
Revenue Thana No. 12 and its revenue village-
Chhapiya which has been reported by concern
Circle Office and respondent no. 9 & 11 which
area is as 180 x 120 feet in view of Gairmazarua
Malikan Land ignoring the running Jamabandi No.
220 in the name of Grandfather of the petitioner
namely Sripal Rawat without consent or
acquisition of the petitioner and his agnate and
also over looked the settlement made by the Ex-
intermediary namely Babu Ayodhya Prasad Singh
in the year of 1935 (12 day of Kartik Mah in the
Fasli Year of 1355) and after vesting of Jamindari
who has filed a return in favour of settle thereafter
Revenue Receipts have also been issued up-to-
dated. And also for issuance of any other writ(s),
order(s), direction(s) to which the petitioner which
may deem just proper and necessary in view of the
facts and circumstances discussed hereinunder.”.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
vide order dated 12.12.2024 this Court had ordered that status
quo as on today be maintained till further of this Court.
Patna High Court MJC No.352 of 2025(3) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has
submitted through para-9 of the show cause filed on behalf of
O.P. Nos. 3 and 9 that no construction has been made after the
order dated 12.12. 2024 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
18891 of 2024.
4. In this way, present M.J.C. application is liable to
be dismissed in light of the fact that M.J.C. has been filed by
the petitioner with intention to put undue pressure on the
opposite parties and also to get undue sympathy from the Court.
5. Considering all the aspects of the case, the
contempt is between contemnor and the Court and considering
para-9 of the show cause which has been submitted on behalf of
O.P. Nos. 3 and 9, the present contempt application stands
disposed of.
6. If the petitioner has any fresh grievance, he may
raise his grievance before an appropriate forum.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
K.C.Jha/-
U
Checking your session…