Allowed¶95

The State of Bihar v. Kumar Vaibhav Vikash

Patna HC19 Feb 2025L.P.A/98/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation of registered sale deed parcels refused by Circle Officer, Purnea East; DCLR Sadar Purnea set aside Circle Officer's order; Public Grievance Redressal Cell directions; Divisional Commissioner direction on mutation; lands surplus in ceiling proceedings against holdings of P.C. Sarkar; acquisition by two Govt. notifications; distribution to parcha holders; Single Judge mutation directions set aside; Circle Officer's order sustained; four LPAs allowed; State of Bihar v. Kumar Vaibhav Vikash; Patna High Court; 19-02-2025; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

All four Letters Patent Appeals allowed; impugned orders of the learned Single Judge in the four writ petitions set aside and the order of the Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea sustained. ¶95

The State of Bihar Vs Kumar Vaibhav Vikash — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All four Letters Patent Appeals allowed; impugned orders of the learned Single Judge in the four writ petitions set aside and the order of the Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea sustained.

¶95

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-purchaser was entitled to mutation of the subject parcels in his name, notwithstanding the State's case that the lands had been found surplus in ceiling proceedings against the holdings of one P.C. Sarkar, were acquired by the Government through two notifications, and stood distributed to parcha holders. +1 more

¶86

Court's answer

The impugned orders of the learned Single Judge in all four writ petitions are set aside and the order of the Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea is sustained, because the lands had been found surplus in ceiling proceedings against the holdings of one P.C. Sarkar, were acquired by the State through two notifications, and were distributed to parcha holders.

¶94

Ratio / Principle

The learned Single Judge failed to notice the ceiling-surplus, acquisition and distribution of the lands, even though the counter affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, Purnea East in one writ petition explained the factual situation.

¶89

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the respondents was not in a position to dispute the fact that the lands were ceiling-surplus, State-acquired and distributed to parcha holders.ratio¶93

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 98, 103, 104 and 105 of 2025 (Patna High Court, decided 19-02-2025, per the Acting Chief Justice, Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ, with Partha Sarthy, J on the Bench): State of Bihar and revenue authorities (Collector, Additional Collector, Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Circle Officer and Revenue Karamchari, Purnea East) appealed against orders of a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. Nos. 5978, 6471, 6377 and 6350 of 2024 directing the Circle Officer, Purnea East to mutate the name of purchaser-respondent Kumar Vaibhav Vikash within a fixed timeline. The Court held that the lands had been found surplus in ceiling proceedings against the holdings of one P.C. Sarkar, were acquired by the State through two notifications, and were distributed to parcha holders named in the memo of appeal; the learned Single Judge failed to notice this, although the Circle Officer's counter affidavit explained the factual position and the respondents' counsel could not dispute it. The impugned orders were set aside, the Circle Officer's order was sustained, and all four appeals were allowed. Delay in filing was condoned and Stamp Reporter defects in LPA Nos. 103 and 105 of 2025 were ignored.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.98 of 2025 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5978 of 2024

¶3

======================================================

¶4

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶5

The Collector, Purnea.

¶6

The Additional Collector, Purnea.

¶7

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea.

¶8

The Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea.

¶9

Bhagirath Prajapati, the Revenue Karamchari of Revenue Halka Nagar Nigam A/1, Circle Office, Purnea East, Purnea P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnea.

¶10

... ... Appellant/s

¶11

Versus

¶12

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash, Son of Sri Madan Mohan Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- South of Pancham Bhawan, Tara Nagar, Madhubani, P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnea.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

with Letters Patent Appeal No. 103 of 2025 In

¶16

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6471 of 2024

¶17

======================================================

¶18

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶19

The Collector, Purnea.

¶20

The Additional Collector, Purnea.

¶21

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea.

¶22

The Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea.

¶23

Bhagirath Prajapati, the Revenue Karamchari of Revenue Halka Nagar Nigam, A/1, Circle Office, Purnea East, Purnea, P.S. - K. Hat, District - Purnea.

¶24

... ... Appellant/s

¶25

Versus

¶26

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash Son of Shri Madan Mohan Prasad Resident of Mohalla- South of Pancham Bhawan, Tara Nagar, Madhubani, P.S- K. Hat, District- Purnea.

¶27

... ... Respondent/s

¶28

======================================================

¶29

with

¶30

Patna High Court L.P.A No.98 of 2025 dt.19-02-2025 2/6

¶31

Letters Patent Appeal No. 104 of 2025 In

¶32

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6377 of 2024

¶33

======================================================

¶34

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶35

The Collector, Purnea.

¶36

The Additional Collector, Purnea.

¶37

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea.

¶38

The Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea.

¶39

Bhagirath Prajapati, the Revenue Karamchari of Revenue Halka Nagar Nigam, A/1, Circle Office, Purnea East, Purnea, P.S. - K. Hat, District - Purnea.

¶40

... ... Appellant/s

¶41

Versus

¶42

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash Son of Sri Madan Mohan Prasad resident of Mohalla - South of Pancham Bhawan, Tara Nagar, Madhubani, P.S. - K. Hat, DistrictPurnea.

¶43

... ... Respondent/s

¶44

======================================================

¶45

with Letters Patent Appeal No. 105 of 2025 In

¶46

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6350 of 2024

¶47

======================================================

¶48

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶49

The Collector, Purnea.

¶50

The Additional Collector, Purnea.

¶51

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea.

¶52

The Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea.

¶53

Bhagirath Prajapati, the Revenue Karamchari of Revenue Halka Nagar Nigam, A/1, Circle Office, Purnea East, Purnea, P.S. - K. Hat, District - Purnea.

¶54

... ... Appellant/s

¶55

Versus

¶56

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash Sri Madan Mohan Prasad Resident of Mohalla- South of Pancham Bhawan, Tara Nagar, Madhubani, P.S- K. Hat, District- Purnea.

¶57

... ... Respondent/s

¶58

======================================================

¶59

Appearance :

¶60

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 98 of 2025) For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG Mr. Vivekanand Prasad (GP-7)

¶61

Patna High Court L.P.A No.98 of 2025 dt.19-02-2025 3/6

¶62

Ms.Roona (AC to GP -7) Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Amit Kumar Anand, Adv. (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 103 of 2025) For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG Mr. Vivekanand Prasad (GP-7) Ms.Roona (AC to GP -7) Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Amit Kumar Anand, Adv. (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 104 of 2025) For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG Mr. Vivekanand Prasad (GP-7) Ms.Roona (AC to GP -7) Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Amit Kumar Anand, Adv. (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 105 of 2025) For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG Mr. Vivekanand Prasad (GP-7) Ms.Roona (AC to GP -7) Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Amit Kumar Anand, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶63

Date : 19-02-2025

¶64

The defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter in LPA Nos. 103 of 2025 and 105 of 2025 are hereby

¶65

ignored.

¶66

All the four appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

¶67

Separate Interlocutory Applications filed in all

¶68

the four appeals for condoning the delay in preferring the appeals are condoned for the reasons stated in those

¶69

Patna High Court L.P.A No.98 of 2025 dt.19-02-2025 4/6

¶70

applications.

¶71

Interlocutory Application Nos. 1/2025 in all the

¶72

four appeals stand disposed of.

¶73

LPA Nos. 98, 103, 104 and 105 of 2025

¶74

The substance of the matter is that certain

¶75

parcels of land were purchased by the respondents by registered sale deeds which they wanted to get mutated in their respective names, which attempt failed because the Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea refused to mutate their names.

¶76

The order passed by the Circle Officer was challenged before the DCLR, Sadar, Purnea in appeal.

¶77

The order of the Circle Officer was set aside. Despite that, it was urged on behalf of the respondents, the land was not mutated in their respective names and as such they had to approach the Public Grievance Redressal Cell and obtain certain directions.

¶78

A direction also appears to have been issued by

¶79

the Divisional Commissioner for taking definite decision in the matter with respect to mutation of the names of the

¶80

Patna High Court L.P.A No.98 of 2025 dt.19-02-2025

¶81

5/6

¶82

respondents.

¶83

Based on these facts, the learned Single Judge

¶84

allowed the writ petitions filed by the

¶85

petitioners/respondents and directed the Circle Officer to mutate the names of the petitioners / respondents in the Govt. records and a timeline also was fixed for the same.

¶86

Challenging such orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the four writ petitions, the State has urged that the lands in question was found to be surplus in the ceiling proceedings against the holdings of one P.C. Sarkar.

¶87

The aforesaid land was acquired by two notifications of the Govt.

¶88

The lands in question in all these appeals fall in the acquired lands by the State. After the acquisition, the lands were distributed to parcha holders, the names of whom have been provided in the memo of appeal.

¶89

It appears that the learned Single Judge failed to notice this aspect of the matter, even though in the counter affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, Purnea East,

¶90

Patna High Court L.P.A No.98 of 2025 dt.19-02-2025 6/6

¶91

Purnea in one of writ petitions, the factual situation was

¶92

explained.

¶93

The learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforenoted fact.

¶94

Considering this aspect of the matter, we set aside the impugned orders in all the four writ petitions and sustain the order of Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea.

¶95

All the appeals stand allowed.

¶96

(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)

¶97

( Partha Sarthy, J)

¶98

sunilkumar/-

¶99

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	20.02.2025
Transmission Date	N/A

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 5978, 6471, 6377 and 6350 of 2024 allowing the writ petitions and directing the Circle Officer, Purnea East to mutate the respondents' names in Govt. records within a fixed timeline.¶10
Patna High Court (learned Single Judge)
Prior proceeding
All four appeals taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.¶66
Prior proceeding
Defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter in LPA Nos. 103 of 2025 and 105 of 2025 ignored.¶64
Prior proceeding
Delay in preferring the appeals condoned for reasons stated in the applications; Interlocutory Application Nos. 1/2025 in all four appeals stand disposed of.¶68
Prior proceeding
Respondents purchased the land parcels by registered sale deeds and sought mutation; the Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea refused to mutate their names.¶75
Prior proceeding
Order of the Circle Officer challenged in appeal before the DCLR, Sadar, Purnea.¶76
Prior proceeding
The DCLR set aside the Circle Officer's order.¶77
Prior proceeding
Despite the setting aside, mutation was not effected; respondents approached the Public Grievance Redressal Cell and obtained certain directions.¶77
Prior proceeding
A direction was issued by the Divisional Commissioner for taking a definite decision on mutation of the respondents' names.¶79
Prior proceeding
On these facts the learned Single Judge allowed the four writ petitions and directed the Circle Officer to mutate the names of the petitioners/respondents in Govt. records, fixing a timeline.¶85
Prior proceeding
State's contention in the appeals: the lands in question were found surplus in ceiling proceedings against the holdings of one P.C. Sarkar.¶86
Prior proceeding
The aforesaid land was acquired by the Government through two notifications.¶87
Prior proceeding
After acquisition, the lands were distributed to parcha holders whose names were provided in the memo of appeal.¶88
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge apparently failed to notice the ceiling-surplus/acquisition/distribution aspect, even though the counter affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, Purnea East in one writ petition explained the factual situation.¶89
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforenoted factual position.¶93

The State of Bihar v. Kumar Vaibhav Vikash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Bihar v. Kumar Vaibhav Vikash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Priyanka Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Baba Debraha Enterprises Vs The State of Bihar

Shri Laldeo Singh Vs The State of Bihar

The State of Bihar Vs Kumar Vaibhav Vikash

The State of Bihar Vs Kumar Vaibhav Vikash