Patna High Court
Arpana Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 9 January, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19408 of 2024
======================================================
Arpana Kumari wife of Shyam Kishore, resident of Mohalla-Raja Bazar,
Jehanabad, P.S. Jehanabad (Town), District-Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Pramandal, Gaya.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna.
4. The Collector, Jehanabad, District Jehanabad.
5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jehanabad.
6. The Circle Officer, Jehanabad, District-Jehanabad.
7. The Station House Officer Jehanabad (Town), District-Jehanabad.
8. Radhe Shyam Sharma, son of Late Anhach Singh, resident of Village
Rajkharsa, P S Mehanida, District Arwal, at present resident of Mohalla-
Raja Bazar, Jehanabad, P.S. Town Jehanabad, District-Jehanabad.
9. Dharmendra Kumar, son of Late Nand Singh, resident of Village Daulatpur,
Adalu Chak, P S Jehanabad, District-Jehanabad.
10. Dhirendra Kumar, son of Late Nand Singh, resident of Village Daulatpur,
Adalu Chak, P S Jehanabad, District-Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bibhuti Narayan, Advocate
Mr.Amarnath Singh
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Babita Kumari, AC to SC-01
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2025
Heard the parties.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for
the following relief(s):-
(i) For issuance of
writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 23.07.2024
Patna High Court CWJC No.19408 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
2/7
passed by the learned Chairman,
Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in BLT
Case No. 69 of 2024 (Anx-1)
whereby and where under the order
dated 04.01.2024 passed by the
learned Divisional Commissioner,
Magadh Pramandal, Gaya in Land
Dispute Appeal No. 108 of 2023 has
been set aside.
(ii) For grant of stay
of the order impugned till the
disposal of the writ petition.
(iii) For issuance of
writ in the nature of Mandamus on
such other writ or direction for
commanding the respondent no. 8
will not disturb in using the 5 feet
wide Rasta from North of the Pyan.
(iv) For direction to
the Circle Officer, Sadar Jehanabad
(Respondent No. 6) after measuring
the land in question and the same
must demolish any structure or
grabbed encroached land with free
access to every one.
(v) For any other
relief/ reliefs to the petitioner as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19408 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
3/7
3. On 07.01.2025, following order was passed:-
The petitioner has
purchased 3.125 decimal of land from
same Vendor (Respondent no.9 and
10) by registered sale deed and the
Vendor has mentioned the boundary
of land in the sale deed as North
Radhe Shyam Sharma and 5 feet wide
way from North at the Pyane. The
petitioner is claiming right to use 5
feet wide land left by the Respondent
No.8 to be used as Public way, but
respondent no.8 has closed the road
(5 feet wide) by placing a boundary
on it. The petitioner has approached
this Court by virtue of order passed
by BLT.
2. Learned counsel for
the State submits that disputed
aspect cannot be decided in writ
jurisdiction.
3. From the perusal of the
order of BLT, it clarified that there is
dispute with regard to the pavement
over the land in question and it is
disputed aspect and the same cannot
be decided in the writ jurisdiction. In
similar matter the Hon'ble Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.19408 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
4/7
Court has already stated that
disputed aspect cannot be decided in
the writ jurisdiction and this kind of
disputed matter be placed before the
Civil Suit and BLT has also observed
the same thing in the order.
4. The decisions of 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.
5. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19408 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
5/7
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 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."
6. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19408 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
6/7
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 that a
private individual is acting in
collusion with a statutory authority."
7. If the learned counsel is
not cooperating the Court tomorrow
i.e. on 08.01.2025, the matter would
be decided on the basis of material
available on record.
8. List this matter on
08.01.2025.
4
. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner orally
submits that petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 83/2024 in the
court of learned Sub Judge, Jehanabad.
5. In light of the discussions made above, it is crystal
clear that the present matter is with regard to the pavement over
Patna High Court CWJC No.19408 of 2024 dt.09-01-2025
the land in question which is disputed aspect and same cannot
be decided in writ jurisdiction.
6. In view of the earlier order dated 07.01.2025 and
arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of as not maintainable.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
alok/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 10.01.2025.
Transmission Date N/A
