Krishna Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 101 Patna

Patna High Court

Krishna Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2026

Author: Purnendu Singh

Bench: Purnendu Singh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.348 of 2026
     ======================================================
     Krishna Devi W/o - Jai Kishor Chaudhari, R/o Vill Madhiya, P.S Sonbarsa,
     Dis Sitamarhi.

                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the District Collector, Sitamarhi.
2.   The District Collector, Sitamarhi, Dist- Sitamarhi.
3.   The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi, Dist-Sitamarhi.
4.   The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sitamarhi, Dist -Sitamarhi.
5.   The Anchal Adhikari, Sonbarsa, Dis-Sitamarhi.
6.   The halka Karamchari Anchal, Sonbarsa, Dist Sitamarhi.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Kumar Manish, SC 5
                                      Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC 5
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
     ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 20-01-2026 Heard Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Manish,

learned SC 5 along with Mr. Kumar Pankaj, learned AC to SC 5

for the State.

2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following

reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-

"(i) In the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 03.12.2025 passed in Mutation Case NO.1154 /2025-2026 by the Circle Officer, Sonbersa whereby and whereunder the Mutation application of the petitioner has been rejected.

ii. In the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in mutation records in view of direction passed by the learned D.C.L.R., Sitamarhi Sadar vide order dated 01.02.2025 in Mutation Appeal No.1003/2024-25 and in view of order dated 26.08.1995 passed in T.S. Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

No.52/1986, 21/1995 learned Sub Judge, III, Sitamarhi.

iii. In the nature of mandamus directing and commanding particularly the Collector, Sitamarhi (respondent 2) to take action against the Circle Officer, Sonbarsa who his intentionally harassing the petitioner and rejecting the claim of mutation repeatedly.

iv. For issuance of any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for in the fact and circumstances of the instant case."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased a piece of

land vide a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2023 from one

Mukund Kumar Shahi, situated in Mauza- Sihwahini, P.S.

Sonbarsa, District, Sitamarhi. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an

application before the Circle Officer, Sonebarsa for mutation of

the said land. The Circle Officer, Sonbarsa rejected the

application of the petitioner vide order dated 14.06.2024.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing mutation

Appeal No.1003/2024-2025 before the D.C.L.R., Sitamarhi

Sadar and who vide order dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure P/4)

quashed and set aside the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the

Circle Officer, Sonebarsa and remanded the matter to the Circle

Officer to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

However, without complying with the direction and order

passed in Mutation Appeal No.1003/2024-25 by the D.C.L.R.,

Sitamarhi Sadar, the Circle Officer again rejected the

application of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

that after remand, the Circle Officer again on the basis of similar

reason has reiterated the order dated 14.06.2024, without

applying his mind by passing a speaking order in accordance

with the mandate of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act,

2011. He further submitted that the Circle Officer has not

conducted inquiry on his own, rather he relied upon the report of

the Karmchari dated 29.06.2025 and in the most mechanical

manner without analyzing the case of the respective parties, the

Circle Officer has again deliberately rejected the application for

mutation of the land, though he has admitted that the objections

were received from 28-30 persons, who were in possession of

the land, which the petitioner had purchased by a valid sale deed

dated 22.07.2023, executed by the grandson of the original land

holder late Shiya Sharan Shai, in whose name the Jamabandi

Nos.1294 and 1295 are standing. Aggrieved by the arbitrary

action of the Circle Officer, learned counsel submitted that

though the petitioner has alternative remedy to file appeal

before the D.C.L.R. against the order dated 03.12.2025 but the

same will be of no relevance, considering the admitted fact that

the Circle Officer is pre-determined to reject the application of

the petitioner without assigning any reason. The reason which

the Circle officer has assigned is not in accordance with the law Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

as the impugned order has been passed without mentioning the

respective case of the petitioner and the objectors and also

without giving the names of the objectors who according to the

Circle Officer are in possession of the land which has been sold

by the vendor of the petitioner to the petitioner by a valid sale

deed. Learned counsel further submitted that the Circle Officer

has not analyzed, as to whether, the vendor was in possession of

the land, rather he has simply rejected the application of the

petitioner on the report of the Karmcahari that 28 to 30 persons

were in possession over the land. No notice was issued to the

vendor. On these grounds also, he wants interference of this

Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the State submitted that the Circle Officer has not committed

any illegality in rejecting the mutation case of the petitioner in

view of the fact that he has acted in accordance with the

provision of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and

the procedure prescribed under sub-Rule (10) of Rule 5 of the

Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012 as amended uptodate. There is

no procedural lapses and the conditions stipulated in the Rules

mandates that the petitioner should be in physical possession

over the land and as such in terms of the report submitted by Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

the Karamchari that in view of the fact that already the land

having been in possession of 28 to 30 persons, it is not possible

to hand over the possession to the petitioner in respect of the

those lands detailed in the sale deed dated 22.07.2023.

Answering to the submission made by the petitioner, he

submitted that vendor was not noticed can only be seen from the

order sheet of the Mutation Case and no objection to that effect

was also made by the petitioner, who was given an opportunity

to be heard by the Circle Officer. There is complete failure on

the part of the petitioner, who has not taken recourse to the

statutory efficacious legal remedy available to her instead of

that, she has proceeded to file the present writ petition, which is

premature and, as such, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

5. Heard the parties.

6. I have perused the evidence brought on record.

Petitioner has claimed that she has purchased the aforesaid land

vide sale deed No.10696 dated 22.07.2023 from her vendor

Mukund Kumar Shahi. The sale deed has been brought on

record and in paragraph no.5 the land executed in favour of the

petitioner is described as under:-

         Khata No.                  Survey Plot             Total Area
                                    No./Khesra No.
         1295                       4560                    4 decimals
         1295                       35                      1 Decimal

Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

1295 37 1 Decimal 1295 36 2 Decimals 1295 4561 4 Decimals 1295 4562 2 Decimals 1295 34 21 Decimals

7. The vendor of the petitioner is the descendant of

erstwhile Jamindar, late Raghuwar Shahi and the jamabandi

nos.1294 and 1295 were created in the name of his late son Sita

Sharan Shahi. The vendor of the petitioner was regularly paying

rent receipt to the Government of Bihar and the revenue receipt

in respect of the land in their possession has been brought on

record by way of Annexure P/2. One of the descendants of late

Sita Sharan Shahi, namely, Janki Sharan Shahi filed title Suit

N.52/1986, 21/1995 before the Sub-judge, Sitamarhi and the

suit was decided in favour of Mukund Kumar Shahi, the vendor

of the petitioner and his brothers. Petitioner has purchased the

land from said Mukund Kumar Shahi vide registered sale deed

dated 22.07.2023.

8. From the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed

in Mutation Case No.1154/ 2025-2026, it appears that the

vendor of the petitioner has not been noticed and the Circle

Officer has proceeded to determine the possession of the

petitioner on the basis of information that 28 to 30 persons are

in possession of the said piece of land.

Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

9. Question involved in the present case, as to

whether, the Circle Officer can restrain himself from mutating

the land in question as described above in name of the petitioner

when revenue record reveals that jamabandi Nos.1294 and 1295

are running in the name of the ancestor of the vendor, namely,

Sita Sharan Shahi, S/o late Raghuwar Shahi?

10. The impugned order reveals that the Circle

Officer has not gone into to determine the said fact and without

considering the same, he has rejected the application of the

petitioner on the ground that sub-rule (10) of Rule 5 of Bihar

Land Mutation Rules, 2012 don't permit to mutate the land

which is not in possession of the parties, seeking mutation.

11. Next question arises, as to whether, this Court in

exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, if, in alternative, the vendor of the petitioner is not in

possession of the land in question, can restore the possession?

12. In this regard, I find that the similar issue fell for

consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of Smt.

Indrawati Devi v. Bulu Ghosh, reported in 1988 BBCJ (HC)

307, wherein the Patna High Court held that the inherent power

of the Court are meant to be exercised in such situations where

nothing is more demoralising to a law abiding citizen than to be Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

told by the Court that it is helpless in the matter of the affording

him any protection even when his adversary has acted with

impunity, contrary to all known legal procedures and that too

after submitting to the Courts jurisdiction. To tolerate such an

injustice would itself amount to perpetrating injustice in its most

blatant form.

13. This Court, in the case of Hindustan Petrolium

Corporation v. State of Bihar, reported in 1996 (2) Pat LJR

621 : (AIR 1996 Pat 163), granted relief of restoration of

possession in a case under writ jurisdiction.

14. In another case of Smt. Manju Devi v. State of

Bihar, reported in 1999 (2) Pat LJR 641, this Court, while

discussing the power conferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, held that the rule of law is the very basis

of the constitutional system, which cannot be sacrificed on any

equitable consideration. Even for a defaulter tenant such mode

cannot be allowed to evict him, defies the system of

administration of justice under the laws of the land and such

relief can be granted. In the said case, the possession of the

disputed shop was restored by the High Court in a case under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Samir Sobha Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

Sanyal v. Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Ors., reported in 1996

(4) S1 CC 144, held that the law should be strictly adhered to

high-handedness action of the parties in having the appellant of

the said case dispossessed without due process of law, cannot be

overlooked nor condoned. The Court cannot blink at their

unlawful conduct to dispossess the person from the demised

property and would say that the status quo be maintained. If the

Court gives acceptance to such high handed action, there will be

no respect for rule of law and unlawful elements would be taken

hold of the due process of law for ransom and it would be a field

day for anarchy. Due process of law would be put to ridicule in

the estimate of the law-abiding citizens and rule of law would

remain a mortuary. In the said case, the respondents were

directed to put the appellant in possession within 24 hours.

16. From the order impugned, it is evident that the

vendor of the petitioner has not been able to be heard and it has

been stated on behalf of the petitioner that her vendor was in

possession of the property which has been executed in her

favour. It is also not a case that the government possesses

interest in the said piece of land or the said land was acquired by

the government for settlement of the persons, who according to

the finding of the Circle Officer based on the report of the Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

Karamchari has not been allotted any part of land by the

government. The petitioner is entitled for protection of her right

guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India,

who has purchased the land described in above background by a

valid sale deed and as such the Circle Officer cannot reject the

application for mutation for which vendor of the petitioner was

in possession and was making payment of rent to the

Government of Bihar in respect of possession over the land in

question.

17. In this regard, I find it proper to quote the

Article 300- A of the Constitution of India, which states that

"No person shall be deprived of his property save by the

authority of law." The State cannot disposes a citizen of his

property accept in accordance with law and procedure

prescribed. The obligation to pay compensation is not

expressively included in Article 300-A of the Constitution of

India can be inferred in that Article. The law in this regard is

well settled by the Apex Court in case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020(2) SCC

569, I find it proper to quote the para-12.1 and 12.2 of the said

judgment, which are inter alia reproduced hereinafter;

"12.1. The appellant was forcibly expropriated of her property in 1967, when the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to private property [State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose, (1953) 2 SCC 688 : AIR 1954 SC 92] , which could not be deprived without due process of law and upon just and fair compensation.

12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 :

(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article.

[K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414]"

18. The Apex Court dealing with the similar facts

where the State is required to make payment of due

compensation in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, reported in

(2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491 has held as under;

"11. There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. The functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode."(emphasis supplied)

19. The proposition of law laid down in the case of

Vidaya Devi (Supra) again reiterated by the Apex Court in the Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

case of Sukhdutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

& Ors. reported in 2022LiveLaw(SC)347 in which dealing with

the right of a citizen enshrined under Article 300- A held that

due compensation is required to be paid by the reiterating the

law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tukaram Kana

Joshi (Supra). The Apex Court held that the State must comply

with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other

permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State

governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status

beyond what is provided by the Constitution.

20. Long possession of the vendor and mutation of

jamabandi in favour of the grandfather of the vendor of the

petitioner itself shows that the Circle Officer has tried to modify

the order passed by the DCLR which has resulted in manifest

illegality resulting into miscarriage of justice. The karamchari

and the Circle Officer can be held responsible for having

committed fraud with the revenue records in garb of the

provision of sub-Rule (10) of Rule 5 of Bihar Land Mutation

Rules, 2012 in absence of reasoned order. Accordingly, the

impugned order dated 03.12.2025 is quashed and set aside.

21. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi is directed to

constitute a three-member-committee, in which one of the Patna High Court CWJC No.348 of 2026 dt.20-01-2026

officers is required to be of the rank of ADM and two members

must be of rank of Deputy Collector for holding an inquiry over

the land in question and see, as to whether, the persons who are

in possession of the land, which the petitioner has purchased,

have any title over the said land and if they have no valid title,

then in that case, he must exercise his jurisdiction in accordance

with law to get the land vacated, so that peaceful possession of

the land can be handed over to the petitioner.

22. In the meantime, the petitioner may avail

appropriate remedy.

23. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

24. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          22.01.2026
Transmission Date       22.01.2026