Patna High Court
Satyadeo Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 11 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1089 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5793 of 2021
======================================================
Satyadeo Prasad Son of Late Laloo mahto Resident of mohalla Kajipur (Pipal
Tal), P.S. Kadamkuan, P.O. Bankipore, District- Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Land Reforms and
Revenue, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue, Government of
Bihar, Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Patna.
4. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Guljarbagh, Patna
City, District- Patna.
6. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
7. Station House Officer, Bypass Thana, Patna.
8. Anumandaliya Lok Shikayat Niwaran Padadhikari, Anumandaliya Lok
Shikayat Niwaran Karyalaya, Patna City, District- Patna.
9. Surenedra Yadav, son of late Mishri Yadav, Near Sentence School, Beside
Jaishankar Yadav, Khejakalan, Pani Tanki, P.O. Khajekalan, Patna City,
District- Patna.
10. Raju Jaiswal, Kauakhoh, in the lane of Nembu Halwai, Thana- Chowk,
Patna City, District- Patna.
11. Anjani Kumar Sinha, son of late Awadh Prasad, Resident of village- Ishopur,
P.S. Khusrupur, District- patna, at present residing at Mohalla- Rajenmdra
Nagar, Road No.6A, P.S. Kadamkuan, town and District Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ajay Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Kulanand Jha, Advocate
Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.11 : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate
Mr. Shreyash Goyal, Advocate
Mr. Achyut Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akshat Arghya, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1089 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 11-08-2025
The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed
under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna
High Court Rules against the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5793 of 2021.
2. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, learned Senior
Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma,
learned Advocate for the respondent no. 11.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant has raised limited grievance before this Court that
while dismissing/disposing of the writ petition filed by the
present appellant, the learned Single Judge has observed that
petitioner has filed the petition with ulterior motive and he was
fully aware that the land in question belonged to respondent no.
11 and, therefore, against the aforesaid observation made by the
learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 10 of the judgment, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant, at the outset, submitted that he has not filed the
present appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition but, as
stated hereinabove, with a limited grievance, the appeal has
been filed. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate that
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1089 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
because of the aforesaid observation made by the learned Single
Judge, respondent no. 11 is the owner of the land and because of
the different proceedings which are pending before the
concerned authorities, the present appellant/writ petitioner
would suffer prejudice. It has been contended that the
government is the owner of the land in dispute, despite which
the aforesaid observation has been made by the learned Single
Judge. It has been contended that the land in question is Gair
Mazarua Aam land and, in fact, the respondent no. 11 is not the
owner of the said land and, therefore, the aforesaid observation
made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 10 be set
aside or appropriate observation may be made by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing
for the respondent no. 11 has mainly contended that, in fact, the
learned Single Judge has not given any finding in paragraph no.
10 that the respondent no. 11 is the owner of the land. Learned
counsel has referred the observation made by the learned Single
Judge in paragraph nos. 4 and 6 of the impugned judgment. It is
further submitted that it appears that the learned Single Judge
has made that observation in paragraph no. 10 pursuant to the
other orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions filed
by the respondent no. 11 or by the present appellant/writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1089 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
petitioner.
6. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, perused the
materials on record. We are of the view that learned Single
Judge has not recorded any specific finding that the respondent
no. 11 is the owner of the land in dispute. Even that was not the
question posed before the learned Single Judge for consideration
and to decide. The learned Single Judge, after recording the
averments made in interlocutory application filed by the
respondent no. 11 as intervenor and after recording the
submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates appearing for
the parties, simply observed that the petitioner was aware that
the land in question belonged to respondent no. 11 and in that
light made such type of observation. We may clarify that this
was not the issue before the learned Single Judge.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we may clarify that the
observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.
10 of the impugned order shall not come in the way of the
present appellant/writ petitioner or respondent no. 11 or the
respondent-State in any pending proceedings before the
concerned authority and/or if the civil proceedings are filed
before the competent civil court with regard to the ownership of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1089 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
the land in dispute.
8. With the aforesaid clarification and observation,
the present appeal stands disposed of.
9. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.08.2025.
Transmission Date N/A
