Petitioner sought writ direction to restore possession of land after purchase and mutation. Court held writ jurisdiction inappropriate for restoring possession against a private respondent, directing petitioners to use CrPC or civil courts instead.
No relief granted; writ petition dismissed based on lack of territorial incidence and jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24700 of 2019
======================================================
Indradev Yadav son of late Dharam Yadav, resident of village- Tetar Bigha, P.S.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam (AAG12) ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition for a direction to
the respondents to restore peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question and take appropriate legal action against the private respondent No.9, who prevented the petitioner from cultivating the land, in the light of the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Rajgir, Nalanda in complaint case
Patna High Court CWJC No.24700 of 2019(2) dt.10-12-2019 2/2
No. 527370118061901817 dated 18.06.2019, which was passed in pursuance of the order dated 01.04.2019 passed in CWJC No. 5992 of 2019.
I am of the view that this court in writ jurisdiction cannot direct the authorities to restore possession of the land of the petitioner and direct the respondent No.9 to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioner as the petitioner has purchased the land from its real owner and got his name mutated in the record of rights. The petitioner, if at all, is aggrieved by the action of the private respondent No.9 he may file petition before the appropriate authority for breach of peace and declaration of possession over the land u/s 144, 145 of the Cr. P. C. or the petitioner may file suit in the civil court of for redressal of his grievance.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
BKS/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ jurisdiction can direct land authorities to restore possession to a purchaser who has mutated the name in record of rights.
Whether appropriate relief lies in writ or through sections 144/145 CrPC or civil suit against a private respondent preventing cultivation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Indradev Yadav
State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Revenue Land Reforms department
The Commissioner, Patna Division
The Collector, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif
The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif
The Sub Divisional officer cum Sub Divisional Public Grievance Redressal officer Rajgir, Nalanda
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
