Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ravi Shankar SinghversusThe State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police)

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The order dated 19‑09‑2025 is modified to read Khata No. 293 in place of Khata No. 193, as the mistake is purely clerical.

Summary

The petitioner, Ravi Shankar Singh, filed a criminal writ jurisdiction petition seeking modification of a September 19, 2025 order because the khata (land record) number was mistakenly recorded as 193 instead of the correct 293 for Plot No. 991, Mauza‑Banahi. The error arose from a typographical mistake in the representation annexed to the writ application. The State, as respondent, raised no objection to correcting the mistake. The Court examined the original Title Appeal No. 14/1999, which correctly cited Khata No. 293, and concluded that the error was purely clerical. Accordingly, the Court modified the earlier order, directing that Khata No. 193 be read as Khata No. 293, and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Court may correct a clerical error in a judgment concerning the khata number of a land parcel.
  • Whether the correction of the khata number affects the substantive rights of the parties.

Subjects

  • khata number
  • land record correction
  • clerical error
  • modification of order
  • writ jurisdiction
  • civil title appeal
  • Patna High Court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3828 of 2025
                                                     In
                             Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2169 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Ravi Shankar Singh, Son of Late Brahamdeo Singh, Resident of Village- Uli
                 Banahi, P.O.- Nauhatta, P.S.- Nauhatta, District- Rohtas, Pin Code- 821304
                 (Bihar).

                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police)
                 Government of Bihar, Patna.
           2.    The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.
           3.    The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shahabad Range, Dehri, District-
                 Rohtas.
           4.    The District Magistrate, Rohtas, District- Rohtas.
           5.    The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, District- Rohtas.
           6.    The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dehri -on- Sone Rohtas, District-
                 Rohtas (Bihar).
           7.    The Station House Officer, Nauhatta Police Station, Rohtas, District- Rohtas
                 (Bihar).
           8.    Santyam Bhardwaj, Son of Pramod Pandey, Resident of Village- Banahi,
                 P.O.- Nauhatta, P.S.- Nauhatta, District- Rohtas (Bihar).
           9.    Santan Bhardwaj, Son of Pramod Pandey, Resident of Village- Banahi, P.O.-
                 Nauhatta, P.S.- Nauhatta, District- Rohtas (Bihar).

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr.Abhishek
                 For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr.Standing Counsel 15
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   10-04-2026                    The present petition has been filed for modification

                   of the order dated 19.09.2025 passed in Cr.WJC No.2169 of

                   2025 by this Court.

                                2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   Khata No.293 of Plot No. 991 of Mauza-Banahi, P.S.-Nauhatta,

                   Thana No. 652, District-Rohtas was the subject matter of Title
Patna High Court MJC No.3828 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
                                            2/3




          Suit No. 74/1983 in which right, title and possession of the

          family members of the petitioner has been declared. Khata

          number has rightly been mentioned at page no. 21 of the writ

          application and paragraph 3 of the judgment in Title Appeal No.

          14/1999. However, in the representation filed before the

          respondent authorities, which was annexed as P/3 of the writ

          application, Khata number has wrongly been typed as 193 in

          place of Khata No.293 and, for this reason, Khata No. 193 got

          mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order dated 19.09.2025 passed

          by this Court. The learned counsel prays for correction in the

          khata number submitting that it was an inadvertent mistake and

          learned counsel seeks apology from this Court for the

          inconvenience caused.

                       3. The learned counsel for the State-respondent has no

          objection if any correction has been made.

                       4. In the light of the facts and circumstances and

          considering the fact that in paragraph 3 of the judgment passed

          in Title Appeal No. 14/1999, Khata No. 293 has been mentioned

          for Plot No. 991 having an area of 11.82 decimals and,

          therefore, taking into consideration the submission of the

          petitioner, the order dated 19.09.2025 passed in Cr.WJC No.

          2169 of 2025 is modified to the extent that Khata No. 193 will
          Patna High Court MJC No.3828 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
                                                      3/3




                    be read as Khata No. 293.

                                 5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed

                    of.



                                              (Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.