Patna High Court
Mundrika MahtoversusThe State of Bihar through Mr. C.K. Anil, the Principal Secretary
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any non‑compliance by the respondents and therefore dismissed the contempt application.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of landowners from Saran district, filed a writ petition seeking contempt proceedings against the State of Bihar and several officials for allegedly failing to comply with a High Court order dated 10 July 2025 in CWJC No.10747 of 2025. The petition alleged that the respondents had not acted on the earlier order, thereby giving rise to a cause of action for contempt. The Court issued a show‑cause notice to the respondents, examined the claim, and concluded that the petitioners had not established any breach of the earlier order. Consequently, the Court rejected the petitioners’ claim, granted them liberty to raise the matter again if they wished, and disposed of the present petition. The order effectively dismissed the contempt application.
Issues considered
- What constitutes non‑compliance with the order dated 10 July 2025 in CWJC No.10747 of 2025?
- Whether the respondents can be held in contempt of court for alleged non‑compliance.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- non‑compliance
- civil writ jurisdiction
- land acquisition
- high court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.88 of 2026
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10747 of 2025
======================================================
1. Mundrika Mahto son of Jagdish Mahto, Resident of Village- Mangarpar
Nuran, P.S.- Dariyapur in the District of Saran.
2. Shyam Babu Rai, son of Late Ramswarath Rai, Resident of Village-
Manpura, P.S. Dariyapur in the district of Saran.
3. Ram Janam Das, Son of Santlal Das, Resident of Village- Manpura, P.S.
Dariyapur in the district of Saran.
4. Kapil Deo Rai, Son of Late Kashi Rai, Resident of Village- Manpura, P.S.
Dariyapur in the district of Saran.
5. Ramji Rai, Son of Late Ram Nihora Rai, Resident of Village- Manpura, P.S.
Dariyapur in the district of Saran.
6. Devanti Devi, Wife of Kamal Thakur, Resident of Village- Manpura, P.S.
Dariyapur in the district of Saran.
7. Birendra Rai, Son of Late Sarvanand Rai, Resident of Village- Manpura, P.S.
Dariyapur in the district of Saran.
8. Chinta Devi, Wife of Late Jai Narayan Rai, Resident of Village- Manpura,
P.S. Dariyapur in the district of Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Mr. C.K. Anil, the Principal Secretary Revenue
and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Mr. Aman Samir, the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saran at
Chhapra.
3. Mr. Om Prakash, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Saran at Chhapra.
4. Mr. Jayant Kumar Gautam, the Circle Officer at Dariyapur, Saran.
5. Mr. N.L. Yavakar, the Zonal Director, NHAI, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12
For the NHAI : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Kunwar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 03-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
Patna High Court MJC No.88 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
2/2
following relief(s):
“to initiate the contempt of court
proceedings against all the respondents
/contemnors in general, and against the
respondents/contemnors No.02 to 04 in particular
for the NON- COMPLIANCES of the order dated
10.07.2025 passed in the CWJC No.10747 of 2025
by the bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy (J),
Patna High Court. The instant non-compliance of
the order has arisen a "CAUSE OF ACTIONS" for
the petitioners to have preferred the present
application, vide the certified copy of the order
dated 10.07.2025 as annexure to the application.”
3. A show-cause on behalf of the opposite party which
shows that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.
4. Granting liberty to the petitioners to agitate the
matter, if they so wants, MJC No. 88 of 2026 stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…