Patna High Court
Binod Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 29 July, 2025
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11203 of 2024
======================================================
1. Binod Kumar Singh Son of Sri Suresh Singh Resident of Village-Ghanadih,
P.O. Dhanaut, P.S. Daraunda, District-Siwan. at Present residing at 54A,
Bahadurpur, Saketpuri, CTIGEE Classes, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Bahadurpur,
District-Patna.
2. Kumari Chanda, Wife of Vinod Kumar Resident of Village-Ghanadih, P.O.
Dhanaut, P.S. Daraunda, District-Siwan. at Present residing at 54A,
Bahadurpur, Saketpuri, CTIGEE Classes, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Bahadurpur,
District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Land
Reforms and Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Additional Collector, Patna.
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Patna City, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna.
6. Satya Narayan Kumar Son of Ramdeo Mahto Resident of Village-Bahari
Begumpur, P.O. Begumpur, P.S. Bypass, District-Patna.
7. Abhishek Kumar Son of Late Shailendra Kumar Resident of Village-Bahari
Begumpur, P.O. Begumpur, P.S. Bypass, District-Patna.
8. Ram Narayan Son of Late Baidyanath Prasad Resident of Mohalla-
Chainpura, P.S. Bypass, District-Patna.
9. Bajrangi @ Vinay Shankar Son of Late Baidyanath Prasad Resident of
Mohalla-Chainpura, P.S. Bypass, District-Patna.
10. Ravi Shankar Son of Late Baidyanath Prasad Resident of Mohalla-
Chainpura, P.S. Bypass, District-Patna.
11. Manoj Kumar Son of Late Shiv Shankar Prasad Resident of Mohalla-
Chainpura, P.S. Bypass, District-Patna.
12. Bipul Kumar Son of Late Sikandar Mahto Resident of Mohalla-Chainpura,
P.S. Bypass, District-Patna.
13. Baban Kumar Son of Late Sikandar Mahto Resident of Mohalla-Chainpura,
P.S. Bypass, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Mohammad Farooq, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4
For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CWJC No.11203 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
2/10
Date : 29-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AC
to GP-4 for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent no. 6.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the land in dispute in the instant writ
application appertains to Khata No. 72, Khesra No. 262, area
88.789 decimals at Mauza Ranipur Chak Milki, Thana No. 20,
P.S. Chowk Kala, District Patna. It is further submitted that
petitioners herein are husband and wife. It is next submitted that
petitioner no. 2 purchased 15.625 decimals of land from the
aforesaid Khesra No. 262 by a sale deed dated 14.11.2009
executed by Hiramati Devi. It is also submitted that Hiramati
Devi had purchased the aforesaid land from respondents no. 6
and 7. It is submitted that thereafter petitioner no. 1 also
purchased 15.625 decimals of land from the aforesaid Khesra
No. 262 by a sale deed dated 16.12.2009 executed by Baidynath
Prasad and his sons, namely, Ram Narayan and Bajrangi along
with Shiv Shankar Prasad and his sons, namely, Manoj Kumar
and Shashi Ranjan. Thereafter, petitioner no. 2 purchased
15.625 decimals of land from Khesra No. 262 by a sale deed
dated 04.01.2010 executed in her favour by Baidynath Prasad
Patna High Court CWJC No.11203 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
3/10
and his sons, namely, Ram Narayan and Bajrangi along with
Shiv Shankar Prasad and his sons, namely, Manoj Kumar and
Shashi Ranjan. Further, petitioner no. 2 purchased 15.625
decimals of land by a sale deed dated 25.01.2010 executed by
Sikandar Mahto and his sons, namely, Vipul Kumar and Baban
Kumar. Thereafter, petitioner no. 2 again purchased 9.375
decimals of land from the aforesaid Khesra by sale deed dated
30.01.2010
executed by Sikandar Mahto and his sons, namely,
Vipul Kumar and Baban Kumar. Thereafter, petitioner no. 1
purchased 16.914 decimals of land by a sale deed dated
26.03.2010 executed by Baidynath Prasad and his sons, namely,
Ravi Shankar Prasad and Vinay Shankar Prasad along with Shiv
Shankar Prasad and his sons, namely, Manoj Kumar and Shashi
Ranjan. It is thus submitted that in this way, petitioners no. 1
and 2 in total purchased 88.789 decimals of land from their
vendors by the aforesaid six sale deeds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
thereafter the petitioners applied for getting their names mutated
with respect to their purchased land and, accordingly, Jamabandi
No. 464, 465 and 463 was created in the name of the petitioners
no. 1 and 2 respectively with respect to their purchased land. It
is further submitted that the vendors of the petitioners were also
Patna High Court CWJC No.11203 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
having Jamabandi created in their names, as such, the
respondent no. 6 and 7 filed an appeal before the Deputy
Collector Land Reforms, Patna City, Patna for getting the
Jamabandi created in the name of the vendors of the petitioners
cancelled, but the same was dismissed by an order dated
08.11.2008. Thereafter, respondents no. 6 and 7 filed revision
against the order creating mutation passed by the Circle Officer
in favour of the vendors of the petitioners and affirmation of the
same by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Patna City, Patna
before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna by filing
Revision Case No. 33 of 2008. It is next submitted that Revision
Case No. 33 of 2008 was referred to the Additional Collector,
Patna for adjudicating the same, accordingly, Revision Case No.
33 of 2008 was allowed by an order dated 10.07.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits
that the vendors of the petitioners had filed Title Partition Suit
No. 104 of 2005 in the Court of learned Sub-Judge-I, Patna City,
Patna in which the respondents no. 6 and 7 along with others
were impleaded as defendants. It is further submitted that Title
Partition Suit No. 104 of 2005 was dismissed for non-
prosecution by an order dated 31.05.2016. It is, thus, submitted
that since the title partition suit filed by the vendors of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11203 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
petitioners stood dismissed for non-prosecution, as such, title
partition suit was not adjudicated on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits
that after the revisional order was passed by the Additional
Collector, Patna cancelling the order of mutation in the name of
the vendors of the petitioners and also setting aside the order
passed in appeal by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Patna
City, Patna, the respondents no. 6 and 7 came on the purchased
land of the petitioners for taking possession. It is submitted that
though the revisional order was passed in the year 2018 but the
private respondents came on the purchased land of the
petitioners fives years thereafter, it was then that the petitioners
came to know that in revision, the order of mutation passed by
the Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna in favour of the vendors of the
petitioners has been cancelled, as such, the petitioners moved
before the Bihar Land Tribunal by filing B.L.T. Case No. 106 of
2024. It is next submitted that B.L.T. Case No. 106 of 2024 was
dismissed by a cryptic order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the
learned Member (Administrative), Bihar Land Tribunal
(Annexure-P/4) on the ground that B.L.T. Case No. 106 of 2024
was barred by limitation as it was filed after more than five
years of the order passed by the Additional Collector, Patna in
Patna High Court CWJC No.11203 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
the revision case.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that since the order of mutation was passed
in favour of the petitioners, as such, the petitioners were in
possession of their purchased land as Jamabandi connotes
possession. It is further submitted that Jamabandi created in the
name of the petitioners till date is standing, as such, until and
unless Jamabandi created in the name of the petitioners is
cancelled, the private respondents cannot come on the land of
the petitioners. It is next submitted that even if Jamabandi is
cancelled whether the Additional Collector in terms of Section
9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 will be entitled to
dispossess the petitioners from the land as this Hon'ble Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 16494 of 2018 (Ramowtar Lakhotia Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors.) has struck down Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land
Mutation Act, 2011 inasmuch to the extent it confers power
upon the Additional Collector to dispossess the person whose
Jamabandi has been cancelled and to put in possession the
legitimate owner/custodian of such land on such terms as may
appear to the Additional Collector to be fair and equitable.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners further submits that no doubt petitioners had moved
Patna High Court CWJC No.11203 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
before the Bihar Land Tribunal after a delay of five years but
then the petitioners were not aware that any proceeding in
between their vendors and the private respondents was going on.
It was only when the private respondents came on their
purchased land that the petitioners came to know about the
prevailing litigation in between their vendors and the private
respondents and on coming to know about the orders passed by
the Additional Collector in the aforesaid revision case, the
petitioners approached the Bihar Land Tribunal. It is further
submitted that merely because the petition was filed after a
delay of five years that in itself did not entitle the Bihar Land
Tribunal to dismiss B.L.T. Case No. 106 of 2024 on grounds of
limitation rather the Bihar Land Tribunal was obliged to assign
reason as to whether the grounds taken by the petitioners in their
application seeking condonation of delay was just and proper or
not.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 6 submits that vendors of the petitioners and the
private respondents are related. It is further submitted that the
land which the vendors of the petitioners sold in favour of the
petitioners does not belong to them i.e. the vendors of the
petitioners neither have title or possession over the land
Patna High Court CWJC No.11203 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
purchased by the petitioners. It is next submitted that even the
Title Partition Suit No. 104 of 2005 filed by the vendors of the
petitioners as plaintiff got dismissed for non-prosecution since
the case was not pursued diligently or the vendors of the
petitioners deliberately did not pursue the partition suit but then
is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the order
impugned passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal is cryptic and does
not assign any reason for not dealing with the condonation
application filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay
in filing the case before the Bihar Land Tribunal nor is in a
position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners that Jamabandi created in
the name of the petitioners is standing and even if the same is
cancelled whether petitioners can be dispossessed from their
purchased land.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the order impugned, the Court comes to a
considered conclusion that the order passed by the Bihar Land
Tribunal is cryptic and does not assign any reason that on what
basis the Bihar Land Tribunal came to a considered conclusion
that the case was barred by limitation when it is the case of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11203 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
petitioners that they were not party to the proceedings either
before the Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna, Deputy Collector Land
Reforms, Patna City, Patna or the Additional Collector, Patna, as
such, were not aware of the order passed by the Additional
Collector, Patna and it was only when the private respondents
came on the land of the petitioners that they became aware of
the revisional order passed by the Additional Collector, Patna,
further, the order impugned does not deal with the grounds
taken in the application filed by the petitioners seeking
condonation of delay in approaching the learned Tribunal, as
such, the order dated 21.03.2024 in B.L.T. Case No. 106 of
2024 passed by the learned Member (Administrative), Bihar
Land Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the Bihar Land Tribunal to consider the case of the
petitioners afresh after considering the issue of limitation in
accordance with law within a period of nine months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
10. It is made clear that if the learned Tribunal
comes to a conclusion that B.L.T. Case No. 106 of 2024 was
barred by limitation in that event proper reasoning has to be
assigned after considering the application filed by the petitioners
seeking condonation of delay.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11203 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
11. The instant writ application is disposed of
accordingly.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 30.07.2025
Transmission Date
