Patna High Court
Vidya Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 10 February, 2025
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10030 of 2022
======================================================
Vidya Singh, wife of Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, resident of Purani Bypass,
Bakhtiyarpur, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Patna.
4. The Additional Collector, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh- Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan- SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
10.02.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel-25 for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitoner submits
that the land in dispute pertains to a plot of land appertaining to
Khata No.153, Plot No.1153, Thana No.138, Mauza- Madhopur,
P.S. Bhaktiyarpur, District- Patna. It is submitted that the
aforesaid land was recorded in the name of Kali Charan Mahto
as would manifest from the Khatiyan annexed as Annexure-6 to
the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that the plot
measured 40 decimals.
3. It is next submitted that Kali Charan Mahto
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
2/14
sold 28 decimals of land of Plot No.1153 from Southern Side to
Ram Kishun Sah vide registered sale deed no.3402 dated
25.07.1933
(Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit) and
Ram Kishun Sah thereafter came in peaceful possession of his
purchased land and Jamabandi No.586 was created.
4. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel-
25 submits that though it is not on affidavit, but he has
instructions to make submission that Jamabandi No.586 was
never created in the name of Ram Kishun Sah and for that he
has written instruction of Circle Officer, Bakhtiyarpur.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next
submits that after the death of Ram Kishun Sah, 28 decimal of
land pertaining to Plot No.1153 stood recorded in the name of
his only son Braham Dutta Prasad. Braham Dutta Prasad had
two sons, namely, Sunil Dutta and Guru Dutt in an amicable
partition of the property of Braham Dutta Prasad including 28
decimals of land pertaining to Plot No.1153 area 03 kattha, 14
Dhur, 04 Dhurki of plot no.1153 fell in the share of Sunil Dutt
and 05 Kattha, 05 Dhur of Plot No.1153 remained in the share
of Braham Dutt. It is submitted that Guru Dutt did not get any
share in the Plot No.1153.
6. It is submitted that Sunil Dutt sold 03 katha,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
14 Dhur, 04 Dhurki of land pertaining Plot No.1153 to Sanjeev
Kumar Singh (husband of the petitioner herein) by sale deed
no.21968 dated 28.08.2010 and Sanjeev Kumar Singh came in
peaceful possession of his purchased land and Jamabandi No.17
was created. It is further submitted that 03 kattha, 05 Dhur of
Plot No.1153, purchased by Sanjeev Kumar Singh was acquired
for NH-31 (Bakhtiyarpur-Khagaria Four Lane) and
compensation of Rs.1373389.89 was paid to Sanjeev Kumar
Singh as would manifest from the notice dated 20.03.2017
(Annexure-1 to the writ application). The learned counsel for
the petitioner pause for a while and submits that since the land
purchased by Sanjeev Kumar Singh from Sunil Dutt was
acquired by the NH-31 for which he received compensation that
in itself demonstrates that there was no objection from the side
of the State with respect to title of the land in question
pertaining to Plot No.1153.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next
submits that Braham Dutt Prasad executed registered general
power of attorney dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure-9 to the
supplementary affidavit) in favour of Sanjeev Kumar Singh with
regard to 05 kattha, 05 Dhur of land of Plot No.1153. Further,
Braham Dutt through his attorney Sanjeev Kumar Singh
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
transferred 03 Kattha, 01 Dhur, 04 Dhurki (5.46875 decimal) of
Plot No.1153 to Vidya Singh (petitioner) by a registered sale
deed no.6208 dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure-10 to the
supplementary affidavit). It is next submitted that petitioner
after purchasing 03 kattha, 01 Dhur, 04 Dhurki of land
pertaining of Plot no.1153 applied for mutation and the same
was allowed by the Circle Officer, Bakhtiyarpur and Jamabandi
No.18 was created in the name of the petitioner and she started
paying rent as would manifest from rent receipt annexed as
Annexure-11 series to the supplementary affidavit. It is next
submitted that Jamabandi No.17 was created in the name of
Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Jamabandi No.18 was created in the
name of petitioner were an offshoot of Jamabandi No.586
created in the name of Ram Kishun Sah. It is further submitted
that this perhaps explains why when the land was acquired by
the NHAI for construction of NH-31, no objection was raised by
the State disputing the title of the land in favour of Sanjeev
Kumar Singh.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next
submits that petitioner sold 01 kattha, 02 Dhur (3.4375 decimal)
of land pertaining to Plot No.1153 which she had purchased
from Braham Dutt to Deena Nath vide registered sale deed
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
dated 11.06.2014. It is submitted that Deena Nath after
purchasing 01 kattha, 02 Dhur of land of Plott no.1153 from the
petitioner got the same mutated and accordingly, Jamabandi
No.26 was created and he started paying the rent to the State of
Bihar and constructed a double storyed residential building over
the land and started living there with his family. It is submitted
that Jamabandi No.26 of Deena Nath Singh was cancelled by an
order dated 28.02.2022 in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.177
of 2021-2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Patna and a
land encroachment case no.10/ 2020-21 was also initiated
earlier.
9. The learned counsel submits that though
jamabandi of Deena Nath has been cancelled, but then,
Jamabandi No.18 in the name of petitioner with respect to left
over land after selling to Deena Nath is still existing. It is also
reiterated and submitted that since Jamabandi No.18 is an
offshoot of Jamabandi No.586 created in the name of Ram
Kishun Sah as such, the authority could not have cancelled the
jamabandi standing in the name of Deena Nath as the same was
also an offshoot of long standing jamabandi in a summary
proceeding, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Standing Counsel-25 submits that Deena Nath neither
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
challenged the land encroachment proceeding which was
initiated against him with respect to 3.4375 decimals of land nor
he challenged the order passed by the Additional Collector
cancelling his Jamabandi No.26 in jamabandi Cancellation Case
No.177 of 2021-2022, but then, the petitioner on his behalf is
pursuing the matter, on which the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that since jamabandi opened in
the name of Deena Nath stands cancelled, the authorities may
proceed to cancel the jamabandi created in the name of the
petitioner also, but then, again reiterates and submits that
Sanjeev Kumar Singh i.e. husband of the petitioner whose land
from the same plot was acquired by the NHAI at that point of
time the State never objected his title and he received the
compensation.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner further submits that the dispute in the case arose
for the reason that on 01.12.1943, sale deed no.1130 with
respect to a number of plot including plot no.1153 at Mauza-
Madhopur was executed in favour of Sri Ganesh High School,
Bakhtiyarpur. The vendor of sale deed dated 01.12.1943
included the name of Ram Kishun Sah. It is thus submitted that
the sale deed no.1130 dated 01.12.1943 gives an impression as
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
if, Ram Kishun Sah had sold the land pertaining to Plot No.1153
in favour of Sri Ganesh High School, Bakhtiyarpur, but then,
submits that on closure scrutiny of the sale deed dated
01.12.1943 annexed as Annexure-G to the counter-affidavit of
the State and Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioner, it would manifest that thumb impression
of Ram Kishun Sah is not on the sale deed admitting execution
of the sale deed and this fact is also apparent from the
endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar, Barh in the sale deed.
11. The learned counsel next submits that as
recorded herein above, the Circle Officer, Bakhtiyarpur initiated
land encroachment case no.10 of 2020-2021 for removing
encroachment from 3.69 decimals of land of plot no.1153 and
accordingly, notice dated 02.02.2021 was issued to Deena Nath
Singh i.e. purchaser from the petitioner. Thereafter, the authority
also started collecting materials on the land of the petitioner for
construction of boundary wall of Sri Ganesh High School. It is
next submitted that petitioner and others filed Title Suit No.07
of 2022 in the Court of learned Civil Judge-1, Senior Division,
Barh for declaration of their title over 28 decimals of land of
plot no.1153 from Southern Side and for grant of temporary
injunction.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
12. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel-
25 submits that since Sanjeev Kumar Singh purchased land
measuring 03 kattha 05 Dhur pertaining to Plot No.1153 was
already acquired for construction of NHAI for which
compensation was also given to him, as such, the said land
cannot form subject matter of Title Suit No.07 of 2022 as it goes
beyond the purview of Civil Court, as such, the Title Suit No.07
of 2022 filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge-1, Senior
Division, Barh is misconceived as part of the suit property
mentioned in Title Suit No.07 of 2022 does not exist for any
adjudication in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submits that though he does not dispute the factual
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner to the extent that Jamabandi no.586 was not in
existence or is in the name of Ram Kishun Sah, but then,
submits that an I.A. No.03 of 2025 has been filed in the instant
case on behalf of the Circle Officer, Bakhtiyarpur wherein at
Para-4, it has been specifically pleaded:-
"4. That the land in question pertains to Mauza-
Madhopur, Khata no.153, Plot No.1153, Area 3.69
decimal, Circle- Bakhtiyarpur where the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
construction of Ganesh High School, Bakhtiyarpur
was being done. The said land has been registered
in the name of Ganesh High School, Bakhtiyarpur
vide sale deed no.13653, dated 21.12.1943 and sale
deed no.1130 dated 01.12.1943. The Jamabandi
existing in the name of Sri Deenanath Prasad over
the said land and an another Jamabandi pertaining
to Khata no.233, Plot no.1214, area 1.48 decimals
in the name of Sri Jeevan Kumar has been cancelled
by the Additional Collector, Patna as they had been
created illegally. In this regard, verification of the
sale deeds registered in favour of Ganesh High
School, Bakhtiyarpur was done by the Joint Sub-
Registrar, Patna and was found to be true. The said
land had again been sold in 1963 and 2010 by the
legal heirs of the previous land owners, which is not
justified in the eyes of law. Thereafter, Circle Officer,
Bakhtiyarpur had initiated Encroachment Case
No.10 of 2020-2021 and has passed order in the
said case in accordance with law. The construction
of the said school is incomplete in light of the stay
order passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC
No.10030 of 2022, due to which the teaching work
of the said school has been affected."
14. The the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State thus submits that at Para-4, it has been specifically
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
pleaded that land measuring 3.69 decimals was recorded in the
name of Sri Ganesh High School and the same was mutated in
the name of Deena Nath for which land encroachment case was
also initiated and thereafter, Jamabandi No.26 standing in the
name of Deena Nath was cancelled by the Additional Collector,
but then, Deena Nath never challenged the land encroachment
proceedings nor the order by which his jamabandi was cancelled
as such, the boundary wall of the school in question is being
constructed only on the land of Deena Nath and one Jiwan
Kumar, whose jamabandi was also cancelled by the Additional
Collector with respect to 1.48 decimal of land pertaining to
Khata No.233 Plot No.1214 and not on the land of the
petitioner. It is also submitted that no part of the land of the
petitioner shall be used in construction of the boundary wall of
the school in question.
15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that since it has been submitted by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that no part of
the land of the petitioner shall be used in construction of the
boundary wall of the school in question as the construction of
the boundary wall of the school in question is being constructed
on the land of Deenanath and Jiwan Kumar, in that event, the lis
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
does not survive, but then, it is submitted that at Para-4 in I.A.
No.03 of 2025, it has been specifically pleaded that land
measuring 3.69 decimal pertaining to Plot No.1153 was
registered in the name of Ganesh High School High School,
Bakhtiyarpur vide sale deed no.13653 dated 21.12.1943 and sale
deed no.1130 dated 01.12.1943 alleged too have been also
executed by Ram Kishun Sah and jamabandi was existing in the
name of Deena Nath Prasad, but then, the case of the petitioner
is that from perusal of the sale deed no.1130 dated 01.12.1943,
it would manifest that the sale deed did not carry the thumb
impression of Ram Kishun Sah as recorded herein above, as
such, the State is still trying to raise a controversy that the sale
deed no.1130 dated 01.12.1943 is a genuine document executed
by Ram Kishun Sah when it is not the case as the land
pertaining to Plot No.1153 was purchased by Sanjeev Kumar
Singh also whose land was acquired by the NHAI and
compensation was paid without any objection by the State. It is
also submitted that since Jamabandi no.26 created in the name
of Deenanath was cancelled, who had purchased the land from
the petitioner on the ground that sale deed no.1130 dated
01.12.1943 was executed by Ram Kishun Sah with respect to
3.69 decimal of land of plot no.1153, the State authorities on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
said plea can also cancel the Jamabandi no.18 in the name of the
petitioner on the said ground.
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, the dispute which had arisen in the instant writ
application is that the petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that
in garb of cancellation of jamabandi of Deena Nath, the
authorities are also coming on the land of the petitioner for
constructing the boundary of the school in question, but since a
specific pleading and submission has been made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State that no part of the land
of the petitioner shall be utilized for construction of the
boundary wall of the aforesaid school, as such, the lis for which
the instant writ application was filed does not survive, as far as,
the contention of the State with regard to sale deed no.1130
dated 01.12.1943 is being raised i.e. an issue which cannot be
decided by this Court rather the said issue can be adjudicated
only by a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. Since jamabandi
was opened in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Singh as well as this
petitioner and Sanjeev Kumar Singh also received compensation
with respect to his purchased land pertaining to Plot No.1153 by
the NHAI without any dispute by the State authorities, which
amply demonstrates that the land purchased by Sanjeev Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
Singh and his wife from the heirs of Ram Kishun Sah was never
disputed by the authorities of the State at any point of time and
if the State for any reason intends to dispute the title of the
petitioner based on the sale deed no.1130 dated 01.12.1943, in
that event, the State will have to get it adjudicated by a Court of
competent civil jurisdiction.
17. Thus, in view of the pleadings made at Para-
4 of I.A. No.03 of 2025 and also taking into consideration the
submissions made by the learned State counsel that no part of
the land of the petitioner is being utilized for construction of the
boundary wall of the said High School, as such, the lis for the
present does not survive, accordingly, the writ application is
disposed of with a direction to the State Authorities to ensure
that no part of the land of the petitioner is utilized for
construction of the boundary wall of Sri Ganesh High School
and in the event, if the State intends to utilize the land of the
petitioner for construction or extension of the school in
question, in that event, the same can be done only in accordance
with law. Further, if the State for any reason intends to dispute
the title of the petitioner based on the sale deed no.1130 dated
01.12.1943, in that event, the State will have to get it
adjudicated by a Court of competent Civil jurisdiction.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10030 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
18. The writ application is disposed of.
19. All interim orders stands vacated.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 10.02.2025
Transmission Date 10.02.2025
