Patna High Court
Ram Vinay Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 28 April, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6166 of 2025
======================================================
Ram Vinay Mahto Son of Prabhu Mahto, Resident of Village- Singhia Buzurg
South, Ward No.12, P.O- Singhia Ghat, P.S- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Patna, Bihar.
2. District Magistrate, Samastipur.
3. Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.
4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur.
5. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Rosera, Samastipur.
6. Circle Officer, Bibhutipur, Samastipur.
7. Revenue Officer, Bibhutipur, Samastipur.
8. Officer-in-Charge, Bibhutipur Police Station, Samastipur.
9. Manoj Banka Son of Indra Kumar Banka, Resident of Bahadurpur, P.S-
Samastipur Town, District- Samastipur.
10. Lalita Banka Wife of Amit Kumar Banka, Resident of Bahadurpur, P.S-
Samastipur Town, District- Samastipur.
11. Manish Kumar Banka Son of Indra Kumar Banka, Resident of Bahadurpur,
P.S- Samastipur Town, District- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, GP-16
Mr. Jutendra Kumar, AC to GP-16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-04-2025
In the instant petition, petitioner seeks following
relief :-
(a) For issuance of writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to restrain the Respondent
no.9 to 11 from constructing the house
forcibly on the purchased and Khatiyani
Patna High Court CWJC No.6166 of 2025 dt.28-04-2025
2/6
land of the petitioner at Mauja- Singhia
Buzurg, Thana no.04, P.S.-Bibhutipur,
District-Samastipur.
(b) For issuance of writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to maintain peace and status-
quo over the land in question.
(c) For issuance of any other
appropriate writ, order or direction which
your Lordships may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
land appertaining to Khata No. 205 (old), Khesra No. 4765
(old), Khesra No. 4765, Area - 4 decimal and Khatiyani Land
Khata No. 157 (old), Khesra No. 4786 (old) Area - 1 Katha 10
dhur belongs to the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner
and one Dinesh Sahni purchased the total land 1 katha 16 dhur
10 kanma i.e. 8 decimal land from Manoj Kumar and Rishikesh
Kumar Sinha vide Registered sale deed No. 861 dated
20.01.2025
out of which the petitioners purchased the 18 dhur
i.e. 4 decimal land vide aforesaid sale deed. He further submits
that Partition Suit No. 202/1970 is pending over his aforesaid
khatiyani land and Title Suit No. 62 of 2020 is also pending
over his aforesaid purchased land in question before the Court
of Civil Judge, Senior Divison, Ist, Rosera. He further submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.6166 of 2025 dt.28-04-2025
that during the pendency of the suit over the said land in
question, some anti social elements dispossessed the petitioner
from the said land in question and they had started constructing
house over the land in question.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
concerned official will look into the matter as title suit as well as
partition suit is pending over the land in question.
4. In the view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
is admitted position that a title suit is pending between the
parties before the competent Court and where disputed aspect in
involved writ petition is not maintainable.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments
has held that regular suit is appropriate remedy for settlement of
dispute relating to property rights between private persons. The
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be
available except where there is violation of some statutory duty
on the part of statutory authority is alleged. It is held that the
High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be
used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general
law, civil or criminal are available. The jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extra-ordinary
should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by
Patna High Court CWJC No.6166 of 2025 dt.28-04-2025
the litigant. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr.
reported in AIR 1957 SC 529 and in the case of Radhey Shyam
& Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors, reported in (2015) SCC 423
are quite relevant.
6. In the case of Sohan Lal (supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed as under :
"We do not propose to enquire into
the merits of the rival claims of title to the
property in dispute set up by the appellant
and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we
would be entering into a field of
investigation which is more appropriate
for a Civil Court in a properly constituted
suit to do rather than for a Court
exercising the prerogative of issuing writs.
These are questions of fact and law which
are in dispute requiring determination
before the respective claims of the parties
to this appeal can be decided. Before the
property in dispute can be restored to
Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare
that he had title in that property and was
entitled to recover possession of it. This
would in effect amount to passing a decree
in his favour. In the circumstances to be
mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for
Patna High Court CWJC No.6166 of 2025 dt.28-04-2025
serious consideration whether in
proceedings under Art. 226 of the
Constitution such a declaration ought to
be made and restoration of the property to
Jagan Nath be ordered."
7. In the case of Radhey Shyam (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraphs 64 and 65 has observed as under :
"64. However, this Court
unfortunately discerns that of late there is
growing trend amongst several High
Courts to entertain writ petition in cases
of pure property disputes. Disputes
relating to partition suits, matters relating
to execution of a decree, in case of dispute
between landlord and tenant and also in a
case of money decree and in various other
cases where disputed question of property
are involved, writ courts are entertaining
such disputes. In some cases the High
Courts, in a routine manner, entertain
petitions under Article 227 over such
disputes and such petitions are treated as
writ petitions.
65. We would like to make it clear
that in view of the law referred to above in
cases of property rights and in disputes
between private individuals writ court
should not interfere unless there is any
infraction of statute or it can be shown
Patna High Court CWJC No.6166 of 2025 dt.28-04-2025
that a private individual is acting in
collusion with a statutory authority."
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances
of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to
the petitioner to represent his grievance before the appropriate
forum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of this order. If petitioner represents his grievance within the
stipulated period, the competent authority shall pass
appropriate order in accordance with law, expeditiously.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
alok/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 29.04.2025.
Transmission Date N/A
