[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Nilu Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 25 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2070 of 2024
======================================================
Nilu Kumari W/o Ranjit Kumar R/o House No. 26, Ubhai, P.S.- Manpur,
Gaya, Bihar- 824209
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, Gaya.
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gaya.
4. The Circle Officer, Manpur.
5. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Technology Bhawan 4th Floor of
Vishveshwaraiya Building, Punaichak, Patna.
6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Mohalla New Karimganj,
P.S.- Civil Line Town, District- Gaya.
7. The Additional Collector, District Registration Officer, Gaya.
8. District Sub Registrar, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mujtabul Haque, Government Pleader (12)
Mr. Pranoy Kumar, AC to GP 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 25-03-2026
1. Petitioner is a proposed purchaser of a piece of land
situated in Khata No. 76, Plot No. 14, Thana No. 320, village-
Bhadeja, Anchal- Manpur, District- Gaya. She has filed the
present writ application for quashing of order no. 109 dated
22.07.2023
passed by the Collector -cum- District Registrar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
Gaya, whereby, he has refused to pass any order permitting
sale / purchase / registration of the aforesaid land. The petitioner
has further prayed for a direction to the respondents authority to
register the land in question in favour of the petitioner.
2. Background facts of the case is that the aforesaid land
was recorded as "Bakast Malik" and was settled by the ex-
landlord namely, Bisheshwar Lal Nakofa in favour of one Bibi
Batulan, mother of one Md. Shakir in the year 1938-39.
3. Upon abolition of Zamindari system, the ex-landlord
submitted return Jamabandi in Compensation Case No. 105/13
of 1953-54 and demand register was opened in the name of Bibi
Batulan. During revisional survey operation the heirs of the
ex-landlord got their names recorded in respect of entire land
including the portion of settled land. A proceeding under Section
106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act was initiated in Title Suit No. 431
of 1980 at the instance of Bibi Batulan which was decided in
favour of the claimant holding the revisional survey entry to be
incorrect insofar as it related to the land settled with Babi
Batulan. After demise of Bibi Batulan her son namely Md.
Shakir came in possession of the land in question and was
paying rent.
4. In the year 2005 dispute arose when Forest Department
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
interfered with the land for plantation purposes leading to
initiation of proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. claiming the
land in question as a forest land on the basis of notification
published in official gazette in the year 1948 as well as in the
year 1952-53 declaring the land as a protected forest. Thereafter,
Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005) was filed by Md. Shakir
seeking declaration of title and possession over the disputed
land.
5. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, Md. Shakir filed
an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order of injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful
possession over the suit land. The concerned court after due
consideration allowed the said application vide order dated
06.06.2006 restraining the defendants from entering upon the
suit land and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff during the
pendency of the suit.
6. Against the order of injunction, Miscellaneous Appeal
No. 13 of 2006 / 14 of 2006 was filed by the defendants before
the District Judge which was dismissed vide order dated
22.02.2007. Aggrieved by the same the defendants filed CWJC
No. 9610 of 2010 before this Court which was also dismissed
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
vide order dated 16.04.2014 and direction was given to the court
below to take steps for expeditious disposal of the title suit
preferably within a period of nine months from the date of
receipt / production of the order.
7. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, Md. Shakir
executed a registered sale deed dated 24.03.2011 in favour of
one Punam Sharma pursuant to which the suit land was mutated
in her name and rent receipts were also issued in her favour.
Subsequently, Punam Sharma executed another registered sale
deed bearing Sale Deed No. 17369 dated 05.12.2016 in favour
of one Sachidanand Singh and three others. Thereafter,
Sachidanand Singh along with three others transferred the land
in question to the present petitioner- Nilu Kumari. In pursuance
thereof, on 16.06.2020 the petitioner along with the intended
vendor presented the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Gaya
for registration, however, the same was not entertained by the
registering authority.
8. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya by letter no.
5050 dated 26.12.2020 requested the registering authorities not
to register the sale documents pertaining to the subject land
saying that the same constitutes forest land. The District
Magistrate was also requested to cancel the demand opened in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
respect of the said land by certain local persons on the basis of
fake documents / Hukumnama.
9. Aggrieved by the said communication, Md. Shakir
preferred CWJC No. 6933 of 2021 which came to be disposed
of by order dated 30.01.2023 whereby Md. Shakir was directed
to file a detailed representation before the District Magistrate
cum- Registrar, Gaya. This Court also granted liberty to Md.
Shakir to approach the trial court by filing an appropriate
application in the event he intended to sell the land in question.
The District Magistrate, Gaya on the representation of the
petitioner passed the impugned order no. 109 dated 22.07.2023
whereby he decided not to pass any order / decree till the
disposal of the pending title suit and the restriction upon the
registering authority shall be maintained with regard to the land
in question.
10. The aforesaid order dated 22.07.2023 bearing order
no. 109 was earlier challenged by Md. Shakir in CWJC No.
13507 of 2023 which was disposed of as not pressed on
03.10.2023 however liberty was granted to Md. Shakir to pursue
appropriate remedy before the learned Civil Court in the
pending Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 / 307 of 2005. The petitioner
instead of approaching Civil Court in pending Title Suit No. 29
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
of 2005 (307 of 2005) has filed the present writ application
challenging the same impugned order which was the subject
matter of CWJC No. 13507 of 2023.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
impugned order passed by the Collector -cum- District
Registrar, Gaya suffers from a clear lack of jurisdiction and is
ex facie unsustainable in law. On the basis of the said order the
Sub Registrar, Gaya has refused to entertain any document
relating to sale / purchase / transfer of the land in question.
Such action is wholly illegal and contrary to law as the
registering authority has no jurisdiction to refuse registration on
such grounds, the same being beyond the scope of Section 71 of
the Registration Act, 1908. At the time of registration the
registering authority cannot adjudicate upon or examine the title
of the property.
12. It has further been argued that the suit land was
"Bakast Malik" and not "Gair Mazarua Aam" land and the
predecessor- in -interest of the petitioner Md. Shakir has been
continuing in possession since 1938. The order dated 16.04.2024
passed in CWJC No. 9610 of 2010 has never been challenged by
the Forest Department thus attained finality. Despite such clear
judicial pronouncement the Forest Department has continued to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
interfere through executive letters which is impermissible in law.
The Circle Officer, Manpur by his report has stated that the land
in question is not forest land however, the said report has been
completely ignored by the Collector while passing the impugned
order. This Court in CWJC No. 9610 of 2010 had directed the
trial court for expeditious disposal of the pending title suit
within a stipulated time yet the suit has remained pending for
years without effective adjudication.
13. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by
Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 129 of 2021 (Kumar
Gaurav vs The State of Bihar).
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued
that the present writ application is wholly misconceived and not
maintainable in law. The land in question is admittedly the
subject matter of Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005)
pending before the competent Civil Court at Gaya. The dispute
is not isolated but is deeply embroiled in multiple litigations as
apart from the aforesaid suit, three other title suits have also
been filed concerning the same land. Such multiplicity of
proceedings conclusively demonstrates that there is no clear,
settled or undisputed title in favour of the petitioner or his
predecessor- in- interest. Serious and complex questions relating
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
to title, nature of land and applicability of forest laws are
involved inasmuch as rent receipts allegedly issued in favour of
the mother of Md. Shakir were granted without any lawful
mutation, without jurisdiction or without conducting any
enquiry regarding the nature of land. The issuance of such rent
receipts by Anchal Officials was in blatant violation of explicit
Governmental instructions prohibiting issuance of rent receipts
in respect of notified or demarcated forest land.
15. Learned counsel further submits that entire claim of
the petitioner is founded upon forged, fabricated and
manufactured documents which do not confer any right, title or
interest in the eye of law. The alleged settlement of 17 Acres of
land by the ex-landlord is categorically denied. The
Hukumnama, Zamindari rent receipts and Cess Revaluation
Return were fabricated documents created solely with the object
of usurping the demarcated forest land belonging to the Forest
Department. It has further been submitted that the petitioner and
her predecessor -in- interest has never been in actual physical
possession of the disputed land and under the garb of interim
injunction proceedings under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. has
attempted to encroach upon the notified forest land. All transfers
executed without valid title or possession is void, non-est and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
illegal and none of the purported purchasers are in possession.
These transactions were undertaken only to create artificial third
party interests in forest land which disentitles the petitioner to
any equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226.
16. There is no violation of any injunction order nor any
contempt of the directions of this Court. In CWJC No. 6933 of
2021 liberty was specifically granted to the petitioner to
approach the competent civil court for permission in case of any
proposed alienation. In absence of any declaration of title or
express permission of the Civil court, the respondents are
justified in maintaining status quo.
17. Lastly, it has been submitted that the claim of the
Forest Department is founded upon statutory notifications issued
under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 reinforced by
the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India. Rent receipts or unregistered
Hukumnama cannot override statutory forest notifications.
Therefore, the writ application being devoid of merit deserves to
be dismissed.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the materials on record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
19. The land in question is a disputed land inasmuch as
on the one hand the petitioner is claiming through her
predecessor- in- interest that the land was settled by the ex-
landlord through Hukumnama and her predecessor -in-interest
has been coming in peaceful possession over the land whereas
on the other hand the case of the State authorities is that the land
was notified as a protected forest by proper notification in the
year 1948 & 1953. It is also the case of the respondent-State
that the claim of the petitioner is founded upon forged,
fabricated and manufactured documents which do not confer
any right, title or interest in the eye of law. The Hukumnama,
Zamindari rent receipts and Cess Revaluation Return were
fabricated documents created solely with the object of usurping
demarcated forest land belonging to the Forest Department.
20. Admittedly the predecessor -in- interest of the
petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005)
which is pending before the competent authority and apart from
the aforesaid suit three other title suits have also been filed
concerning the disputed land. The multiplicity of proceedings
pertaining to the subject land demonstrates that there is no clear,
settled or undisputed title in favour of the petitioner or her
predecessor -in- interest.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
21. Complex question of title vis-a-vis question of law
pertaining to protected forest are involved in this case, as such,
directing the registering authority to register the disputed land
will further complicate the situation. This Court in earlier writ
petitions filed by the petitioner's predecessor- in- interest had
given liberty to take permission from the competent Civil Court
in the pending suit for sale of the disputed property. Interference
by this Court during pendency of the suit under its extraordinary
writ jurisdiction is not warranted in the facts of the present case.
22. Considering the fact that complex question of title,
claim of the petitioner and / or her predecessor-in-interest vis-a-
vis the claim of the Forest Department is involved in this writ
application, accordingly, this Court cannot direct the registering
authority to register the land in question in favour of the
petitioner. The judgment of Division Bench relied upon by the
petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the present writ application involves
serious and disputed question of title vis- a- vis the nature of the
land as protected forest, accordingly, no positive direction can
be issued to the registering authority for registration of the
subject land.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2070 of 2024 dt.25-03-2026
24. The writ application is devoid of any merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 12-01-2026
Uploading Date 25-03-2026
Transmission Date NA
