Patna High Court
Vikash Ranjan @ Chaman Singh 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.1149 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13792 of 2024
======================================================
Vikash Ranjan @ Chaman Singh S/o- Late Chittaranjan Prasad Singh Vill.
and Post- Dumri, P.S.- Mohanpur, (Patory), Dist.- Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Samastipur.
4. The Circle Officer, Mohanpur, District- Samastipur.
5. Balram Roy, S/o- Late Mohan Ray Vill.- Baghra Post- Dumri, P.S.-
Mohanpur (Patori), District- Samastipur.
6. Guru Charan Ray, S/o- Ramtahal Ray Vill. and Post- Dumri, P.S.-
Mohanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.
7. The D.C.L.R., Patori, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Kumar Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Navneet Prabhakar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12
Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG-12
For the Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 11-08-2025
Re: I. A. No. 02 of 2024
The present interlocutory application has been filed
under Section-5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay
of 20 days caused in preferring the present appeal.
2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Das, learned counsel for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1149 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
2/10
the applicant/appellant, Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, learned A.C.
to AAG-12 for the State and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.6.
3. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the
averments made in this application.
4. In view of the averments made in this application
and the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant, we are of the view that the
applicant/appellant has shown sufficient cause for not preferring
the appeal within the period of limitation.
5. Accordingly, delay of 20 days caused in preferring
the present appeal is, hereby, condoned.
6. I. A. No. 02 of 2024 stands allowed.
Re: L.P.A. No. 1149 of 2024
7. The present appeal has been filed under Clause-X
of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules against the order
dated 11.09.2024, rendered by learned Single Judge in Civil
Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13792 of 2024.
8. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Das, learned counsel for
the appellant, Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, learned A.C. to AAG-12
for the State and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, learned counsel for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1149 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
3/10
respondent No.6.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred the
impugned order and, thereafter, contended that the learned
Single Judge has disposed of the captioned writ petition by
relegating the petitioner to the appellate authority i.e., the
Divisional Commissioner, despite which, the learned Single
Judge in paragraph No. 9 of the impugned order has observed
that till final disposal of the appeal, the order passed by the
concerned authority i.e., the Deputy Collector Land Reforms
(hereinafter referred to as the 'D.C.L.R.'), shall not be given
effect to. Learned counsel has, therefore, contended that though
the learned Single Judge did not entertain the petition filed by
the writ petitioner on the ground of availing statutory alternative
remedy, granted the interim relief to the writ petitioner till final
disposal of the appeal. It is contended that on the date of
disposal of the petition, even the appeal was not preferred by the
original writ petitioner. Learned counsel would further contend
that while passing the said order, the learned Single Judge did
not assign any reason for grant of such relief in favour of the
original writ petitioner. It has been pointed out from the records
that the aforesaid order came to be passed on 11.09.2024 and till
date, the notice in the appeal filed by the original writ petitioner
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1149 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
4/10
is not received by the present appellant. Learned counsel,
therefore, urged that the impugned order be set aside. Learned
counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel
Queen Road Private Limited & Ors. vs. Ram Parshotam Mittal
& Ors.; reported in (2014) 13 SCC 646, and more particularly
paragraph No. 16 thereof. At this stage, learned counsel has also
placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Mohan & Ors. vs. H.N. Rai
& Ors.; reported in (2008) 2 SCC 507, and more particularly
paragraph No. 24 thereof. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that
in view of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it was not open for the learned Single Judge to
grant relief to the writ petitioner while disposing of the petition.
Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the present appeal be
allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge be set aside.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has
opposed the present appeal. Learned counsel would mainly
contend that as per provisions contained in Section 15 of the
Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1149 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
5/10
to as the 'Act of 2009'), once the appeal is filed by the
appellant, the order passed by the competent authority is
automatically stayed. Learned counsel referred the aforesaid
provision in support of the said contention. Learned counsel for
the private respondent, thereafter, submitted that in the present
case, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by
relegating the writ petitioner before the appellate authority and,
therefore, now, when the writ petitioner has filed the appeal
before the appellate authority, the impugned order passed by the
D.C.L.R. is required to be stayed and, therefore, the learned
Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the
impugned order. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that this
appeal be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent authorities has also supported the submissions
canvassed by the private respondent. Learned counsel submits
that this appeal may not be entertained.
12. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
learned counsels for the parties, perused the materials placed on
record and the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by
learned counsels for the parties.
13. From the records, it would emerge that the present
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1149 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
6/10
respondent No. 6 filed the captioned writ petition challenging
the order dated 10.08.2024, passed by the Deputy Collector
Lands Reforms, whereby, the said authority has held that the
writ petitioner has illegally occupied the land in question by
constructing the cattle shed. The D.C.L.R. also directed the
concerned Circle Officer to take necessary action to ensure that
the possession of the land in question be handed over to the
concerned private respondent. It further transpires that the
learned Single Judge did not issue notice to the private
respondent in the writ petition/present appellant and the writ
petition came to be disposed of on the ground that the original
writ petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of statutory
appeal before the Divisional Commissioner as provided under
Section 14 of the Act of 2009.
14. It is required to be observed, at this stage, that the
original writ petitioner has not challenged the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge and, in fact, the original writ
petitioner has already preferred the appeal before the appellate
authority i.e., the Divisional Commissioner. However, at this
stage, it is further required to be observed that though the
learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by
granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1149 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
7/10
Divisional Commissioner within the stipulated time, the learned
Single Judge has further observed that the order dated
10.08.2024
, passed by the D.C.L.R., shall not be given effect to
till the final disposal of the appeal.
15. Therefore, the limited question before us in the
present appeal is "whether the learned Single Judge could have
passed the order of grant of relief in favour of the writ petitioner
while relegating him to the appellate authority or not?"
16. With a view to decide the aforesaid question, at
this Stage, we would like to refer the decision rendered in the
case of Ajay Mohan (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed in paragraph No. 24 as under :-
"24. The order of the City Civil Court
dated 13-10-2006 may be bad but then it was
required to be set aside by the court of appeal.
An appeal had been preferred by the appellants
thereagainst but the same had been withdrawn.
The said order dated 13-10-2006, therefore,
attained finality. The High Court, while allowing
the appellant to withdraw the appeal, no doubt,
passed an order of status quo for a period of two
weeks in terms of its order dated 23-11-2006 but
no reason therefor had been assigned. It ex facie
had no jurisdiction to pass such an interim order.
Once the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn,
the Court became functus officio. It did not hear
the parties on merit. It had not assigned any
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1149 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
reason in support thereof. Ordinarily, a court,
while allowing a party to withdraw an appeal,
could not have granted a further relief. "
17. From the aforesaid observation made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that once the appeal was
permitted to be withdrawn, the Court became functus officio and
the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an interim order.
18. In the case of Hotel Queen Road Private Limited
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph
No. 16, as under :-
"16. In view of the aforestated
judgments, it is very clear that if a petition is not
maintainable and is ultimately withdrawn, the
court should not continue interim relief for a
period beyond withdrawal of the writ petition.
However, the aforestated observation would not
apply to a case where the matter is heard on
merits and after considering the facts of the case
the court permits withdrawal of the case. In such
a case, the court is at liberty to extend the
interim relief or can grant interim relief for a
limited period after recording reasons for the
same."
19. From the aforesaid observation made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that if a petition is not
maintainable and is ultimately withdrawn, the Court should not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1149 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
continue interim relief for a period beyond withdrawal of the
writ petition.
20. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the present case as
discussed herein above are examined, it transpires that while not
entertaining the petition filed by the writ petitioner on the
ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy, the
learned Single Judge has observed that the order passed by the
D.C.L.R. shall not be given effect to till final disposal of the
appeal. Further, while granting such relief in favour of the writ
petitioner, the learned Single Judge did not assign any reason.
21. We are also of the view that the reliance placed by
learned counsel for the respondent No. 6/original writ petitioner
upon Section 15 of the Act of 2009, is misconceived.
22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the present case, we are of the view that the learned Single
Judge has committed an error by granting interim relief in
favour of the writ petitioner till final disposal of the appeal and,
therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside.
Accordingly, the same is set aside.
23. It is pertinent to note, at this stage, that the
original writ petitioner has already filed an appeal i.e., Land
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1149 of 2024 dt.11-08-2025
Dispute Appeal Case No. 27 of 2024, which is pending before
the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga.
24. We, hereby, direct that the present appellant shall
appear before the appellate authority within a period of one
week from today and the appellate authority shall decide the
appeal filed by the original writ petitioner within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
25. The appeal stands allowed.
26. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/Saurabh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 14.08.2025
Transmission Date N/A
