Patna High Court
Yashvant Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 2 September, 2025
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13946 of 2025
======================================================
Yashvant Kumar Choudhary, S/o Late Phul Kumar Choudhary, a resident of
Nehara, Darbhanga. Presently residing at Village- Azraqube Govindpur, P.S.-
Biraul, District- Darbhanga, State- Bihar, PIN- 847233.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
3. Senior Deputy Collector-cum-Nodal Officer in the Janta Durbar Programme
Of District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Darbhanga.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Biraul, District- Darbhanga.
6. The Anchal Adhikari, Biraul, District- Darbhanga.
7. The Block Development Officer, Biraul, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4
: Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to GP-04
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-09-2025
Heard Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned AC to GP-4,
appearing for the State-respondents.
2. This application has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following
reliefs :-
"(i) That the respondents be restrained from
constructing the building of Panchayat Bhawan on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
2/13
raiyati agricultural land in cultivating possession of the
petitioner pertaining to Khata No. 48 (old)/109 (new),
Khesra No. 6/135 (old)/40 (new), raqba,-1, Acre 76
decimal, Mouza-Azraqbe Govindpur, Anchal-Biraul,
District-Darbhanga.
(ii) That the respondents be directed to
restore the possession of the land of the petitioner.
(iii) That the respondents be directed to make
a just payment of compensation for the period during
which the petitioner was deprived from use and
occupation of his property without any legal
justification.
(iv) That any other relief/reliefs be granted to
the petitioner to which he may be found entitled in the
fact and circumstances of the case."
3. Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the grandson of one,
namely Bhupati Narain Choudhary, who, along with Mahipat
Narain Choudhary, Raj Kishore Narain Choudhary, Brij Kishore
Narain Choudhary, and Nathuni Choudhary, was co-proprietor of
148 Bigha 4 Kattha 6 Dhoor of land of Mahal Azraqbe
Gobindpur in the District of Darbhanga, which included Plot No.
6/135 of Khata No. 48. The interest of one of the co-proprietors,
namely Nathuni Choudhary S/o Fateh Narain Choudhary, was
acquired by purchase by Mossomat Janakbati Choudhrain, who
applied for separation of her 3 annas 4 ganda share under Section
30 of the P.A. in the partition in T. No. 342 of 1923/24. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
3/13
further submitted that the land in question was recorded as
Gairmajarua Khas in the C.S. Khatiyan and the Revenue Officer,
on the basis of local inspection, found that the said land fell in
the category of Bakasht land and accordingly fixed rent at Rs
10/- per Bigha by his order dated 15.12.1924 passed in T. No.
342 of 1923-24, i.e., in the Partition Case of Mahal Azraqbe
Gobindpur. In the recent Revisional Survey, new Plot No. 40
under Khata No. 109 has been carved out from the land of Plot
No. 6/135, and on perusal of the R.S. Khatian of Plot No. 40
under Khata No. 109, it is evident that the land in question has
been recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar, however, the nature of the
land is described as Dhanhar and in the remarks column, the said
land has been shown to be in illegal possession of Phul Kumar
Choudhary, the father of the petitioner. The entry of Raiyat is
patently wrong as the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, who
was the ex-proprietor of the land in question, had been in
peaceful possession of the land for more than a century. It is
further submitted that the petitioner's father and the petitioner
have been paying rent to the State of Bihar since 16.03.1991 and
25.08.2000
respectively, and the State of Bihar has issued rent
receipts. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know
regarding the demarcation of land for construction of Panchayat
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
Bhawan of Dumri, thereafter, he made an application on
03.06.2025 at Darbhanga against making any construction on his
raiyati land, but in vain. Thereafter, on 23.06.2025, by making an
online application, the petitioner appeared in the Janta Darbar of
the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, to save his raiyati land from
being grabbed by the local administration. Subsequently, on
24.06.2025, the Anchal Adhikari, Biraul, along with the police
force, arrived at the aforesaid land of the petitioner, who was
doing agricultural work on his land at that time, and threatened
him with dire consequences if he did not vacate his possession
over the land in question. It is further submitted that it is an
admitted position that the petitioner has been in actual physical
possession of the land in question since the time of his
grandfather and the respondents have not taken any step for
cancellation of the Jamabandi of the petitioner in respect of the
land in question, nor have they initiated any land acquisition
proceeding for acquiring the raiyati land of the petitioner prior to
starting the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan on his land,
which is completely in violation of Articles 21 & 300A of the
Constitution of India.
4. In support of his aforesaid submission, particularly to
substantiate the petitioner's claim as to his right having accrued
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
in his favour on the basis of his long possession over the land in
question, the petitioner's counsel has placed reliance upon the
following judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court: -
(i) Ramowtar Lakhotia v. State of Bihar through the
Chief Secretary and Ors. Passed in CWJC No. 16494 of 2018,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 800 and the relevant
paragraph No. 26 of the said judgment upon which reliance has
been placed, reads as under: -
"26. In the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation, (2013) 1 SCC 353, the two
Judge Bench of the Apex Court highlighting the essence of right
to property held it to be not only a constitutional or statutory right
but also a human right. It is succinctly held that even after the
right to property ceased to be a fundamental right, taking
possession of or acquiring the property of a citizen most certainly
tantamounts to deprivation and such deprivation can take place
only in accordance with the "law", as the said word has
specifically been used in Article 300-A of the Constitution. In
paragraph 17 of the afore-noted judgment, it was held that
depriving the appellants of their immovable properties was a
clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution."
(ii) Rame Gowda (Dead) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa
Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. and Another, reported in (2004) 1 SCC
769 and the relevant paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment upon
which reliance has been placed, reads as under: -
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
"8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law
is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled
to retain his possession and in order to protect such
possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out
a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully
dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do
so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force.
If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property
belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall
have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in
his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with
his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person
in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a
rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his
own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even
from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of
limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior
possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better
title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is
itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go
with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property
may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser
from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of
being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring,
intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been
committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough
time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the
possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not
be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner."
(iii) Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani,
reported in (2003) 7 SCC 350, paragraph no. 34 of the judgment
upon which reliance has been placed reads as under:-
"34. A contract for sale does not confer title in
immovable property. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act
provides that a contract for the sale of immovable property is a
contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms
settled between the parties; it does not of itself, create any
interest in or charge on such immovable property. However
still, if a person has entered into possession over immovable
property under a contract for sale and is in peaceful and settled
possession of the property with the consent of the person in
whom the title vests, he is entitled to protect his possession
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
against the whole world, excepting a person having a title
better than what he or his vendor possesses. If he is in
possession of the property in part-performance of contract for
sale and the requirements of Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act are satisfied, he may protect his possession even
against the true owner. (See Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v.
Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi [(2002) 3 SCC 676] ). Section 6
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides for any person
dispossessed without his consent of immovable property
otherwise than in due course of law being entitled to claim and
successfully sue for recovery of possession thereof,
notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit if
the suit is brought before the expiry of six months from the date
of dispossession except against the Government. Article 64 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 contemplates a suit for possession of
immovable property based on previous possession, and not on
title, being brought within twelve years from the date of
dispossession. Such a suit is known in law as a suit based on
possessory title as distinguished from proprietary title. The law
discourages people from taking the law into their own hands,
howsoever good and sound their title may be. Possession is
nine points in law and law respects peaceful and settled
possession. Salmond states in Jurisprudence (12th Edn.)--
"These two concepts of ownership and
possession, therefore, may be used to distinguish
between the de facto possessor of an object and its de
jure owner, between the man who actually has it and
the man who ought to have it. They serve also to
contrast the position of one whose rights are ultimate,
permanent and residual with that of one whose rights
are only of a temporary nature. (p. 59)
* * *
In English law possession is a good title of
right against anyone who cannot show a better. A
wrongful possessor has the rights of an owner with
respect to all persons except earlier possessors and
except the true owner himself. Many other legal
systems, however, go much further than this, and treat
possession as a provisional or temporary title even
against the true owner himself. Even a wrongdoer,
who is deprived of his possession, can recover it from
any person whatever, simply on the ground of his
possession. Even the true owner, who takes his own,
may be forced in this way to restore it to the
wrongdoer, and will not be permitted to set up his
own superior title to it. He must first give up
possession, and then proceed in due course of law for
the recovery of the thing on the ground of his
ownership. The intention of the law is that every
possessor shall be entitled to retain and recover his
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
possession, until deprived of it by a judgment
according to law. Legal remedies thus appointed for
the protection of possession even against ownership
are called possessory, while those available for the
protection of ownership itself may be distinguished as
proprietary. In the modern and medieval civil law the
distinction is expressed by the contrasted terms
petitorium (a proprietary suit) and possessorium (a
possessory suit)." (p. 60):"
5. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned AC to
GP-4, submits that from the averments made by the petitioner in
the writ petition as well as from the annexures, it is clearly evident
that the land in question is presently recorded as Anabad Bihar
Sarkar, the nature of which has been described as Dhanhar, and in
the remarks column, the same has been shown as being in illegal
possession of the petitioner's father. The petitioner has a specific
remedy for redressal of his grievance under the Civil laws if he
has been dispossessed from the land in question, and insofar as the
entries in the revenue records are concerned, they are not in favour
of the petitioner.
6. Heard both sides, perused the annexures filed by the
petitioner with this writ petition, and also gone through the
averments made in the writ petition.
7. In the Indian Judicial system, there are mainly three
layers to get justice in respect of a Civil wrong. The first layer is
the District court, the second layer is the High Court, and the third
layer is the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Likewise, in revenue matters,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
there are also several layers for redressing the grievance of one
relating to revenue matters under revenue laws, such as an
application or case before the Circle Officer, an appeal before
DCLR, Collector and in some cases before Additional Collector,
further a revision before Commissioner etc., and application/case
before a tribunal established to deal with revenue matters under
specified revenue laws, and finally, before the High Court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The purpose of setting up these layers is
to correct or scrutiny the judicial decision of a forum/court by a
superior forum/court that is in the interest of the people who claim
themselves to be sufferers on account of a civil wrong or a wrong
relating to revenue matters. Though in several cases, particularly
in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade
Marks, Mumbai and Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that one can approach the Constitutional
court like the High Court without exhausting the alternative
remedies in three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ
petitioner seeks an enforcement of any of the fundamental rights,
(ii) where there is a violation of the principle of natural justice, or
(iii) where the order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. However, one
who approaches the Constitutional court referring to the existence
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
of any of these contingencies should consider that after getting the
decision from the High Court on merit, he will have further
limited remedies either before the larger bench of the High Court
as per rules or before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Although after
getting a decision from the High Court in writ jurisdiction, one is
not restricted from availing other remedies before the other
forums or courts at District level, however, it should be kept in
mind that any observation made by the High Court in writ
jurisdiction on the merit of an issue may have some effect on the
judicial approach of the District Court/forum, and it should also be
kept in mind that at District level, the courts/forums have much
more time to go through the issues and examine the relevant
evidence. So, sometimes directly approaching the Constitutional
court in a hasty manner may not be more beneficial than getting
the alleged wrong redressed from the other courts/forums step by
step, as after the decision of the Constitutional court on an issue
on merit, the further remedies will remain limited. Nowadays, the
High Court is countering a flood of writs relating to civil wrong(s)
in respect of revenue matters wherein the parties approach the
Constitutional court directly without exhausting several
efficacious alternative remedies available to them. Though, in the
presence of any of the aforesaid contingencies, one can directly
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
approach the Constitutional court, but he/she must show the
emergent situation which has forced him/her to approach the
Constitutional court, and simply pleading the requirement of
enforcement of any of the fundamental rights by such person is
not sufficient as most of the wrongs involve the violation of
fundamental rights directly or indirectly. In respect of other
contingencies, the facts and circumstances of every matter should
be looked into, which may vary case to case and it should be left
to the discretion of the Constitutional court.
8. Now, I come to the present matter. The main relief
which the petitioner has sought for is to restrain the construction
of the building of Panchayat Bhawan upon his land pertaining to
Khata No. 48 (old)/109 (new), Khesra No. 6/135 (old)/40 (new),
Raqba 1 acre 76 decimal, Mauza - Azraqbe Govindpur, Anchal -
Biraul, District - Darbhanga, and restore his possession over the
land in question. In view of these prayers, it is prima facie evident
that the petitioner has no possession over the land in question. The
petitioner has based his claim mainly on the basis of the land in
question being recorded as Gairmajarua Khas in C.S. Khatiyan
and deeming the land in the category of Bakasht land by the
Revenue Officer. However, it is a settled proposition of law that
revenue records are not considered documents of title, and mere
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
entries in the revenue records or issuance of rent receipts do not
create one's title nor divest the real title owner of a land of his
right, title, and interest in the land. It is an admitted position that
the land in question is presently recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar
in RS Khatiyan, which was prepared several years ago, and the
nature of the said land is described as Dhanhar, and in the
remarks column, the said land has been shown to be in illegal
possession of Phul Kumar Choudhary, the father of the petitioner.
The petitioner has not satisfied this Court as to why he has not
taken steps to get the land in question entered in his name in the
revenue records by using the legal recourse. However, such
complex question which requires evidences should be examined
by the concerned revenue court/civil court if the petitioner
approaches them. Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioner
has not made out a case for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this
Court, and the circumstances pointed out by him are not
persuading this Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction to decide the
main issue raised by the petitioner by bypassing the efficacious
legal remedies which are available to him. Accordingly, the instant
writ petition stands rejected.
9. The petitioner will have the liberty to approach the
concerned court/forum for redressing his grievance relating to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
alleged civil wrong/wrong. If the petitioner avails of the liberty,
then the concerned court/forum will decide his prayer without
being prejudiced by this judgment according to merit. It is
clarified that the aforesaid observations made by this Court in
respect of the petitioner's issue will not affect the merit of the
issue if he raises the same before any competent court/forum.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Siddharthkr/-
BKS/-Annu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.09.2025
Transmission Date 08.09.2025
