In a writ petition challenging unauthorized construction on private land, the Patna High Court held that a complex dispute regarding title between private persons is appropriate for civil adjudication under Article 226 or 227 is not available.
Petition disposed of with no relief granted to the petitioners on the merits.
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.11380 of 2021
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.Santosh Kumar For the State : Md. Irshad A.C to S.C-I
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-08-2025
In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed
for the following relief:-
(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs, direction directions authority for removal of unauthorized construction made on petitioners Plot No. 859 and 860 area 2 dec. pertaining to Khata No. 24 situated at Village- Khajuri, Police Station Naubatpur, District Patna by private respondent no. 7 on
Patna High Court CWJC No.11380 of 2021 dt.01-08-2025
2/6
the instruction of respondent authority no. 5 C.O. Naubatpur, Patna ignoring the orders passed by the respondent no. 4, D.C.L.R., Danapur in Land Disputes Case No. 34 of 2013-14 and 40 of 2015-16. The said unauthorized construction has been made after breaking the wall of petitioner in his absence.
(b) To pass the suitable compensation at the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lacs) which has been lost by the petitioner due to breakage of his legal construction on his own land.
petitioner-Deo Pujan Singh had purchased 2 decimals of land appertaining to Khata no. 24, Plot No. 859 and 860, situated at village-Khajuri, Police Station-Naubatpur,District-Patna, from Narayan Sao by virtue of sale deed no. 8563 dated 19.08.2003, and was in peaceful possession thereof. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner died, and his legal heirs-petitioners stepped into shoes of the original petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.7 approached D.C.L.R, Danapur on two occasions and on both the occasions D.C.L.R, Danapur passed the order of measurement however, after the measurement, the said measurement has not been accepted by respondent no. 7 and he has encroached the land of the petitioner. He further
Patna High Court CWJC No.11380 of 2021 dt.01-08-2025 3/6
submits that while deciding land dispute case no. 34 of 2013-14 the D.C.L.R, Danapur directed the C.O, Naubatpur for doing the needful but the C.O, Naubatpur did not do anything and asked the parties for approaching the Civil Court, as stated in para 8 and 9 of the writ petition. Petitioners aggrieved by the action of the respondent no.7 has approached this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11380 of 2021 dt.01-08-2025 4/6
civil or criminal are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extra-ordinary should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in AIR 1957 SC 529 and in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors, reported in (2015) SCC 423 are quite relevant.
“We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs. These are questions of fact and law which are in dispute requiring determination before the respective claims of the parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property and was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Art. 226 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11380 of 2021 dt.01-08-2025 5/6
the Constitution such a declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered.”
Supreme Court in paragraphs 64 and 65 has observed as under :
65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.”
disputed aspect with respect to the title over the land cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and the appropriate remedy, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is before the Civil Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11380 of 2021 dt.01-08-2025 6/6
with liberty to the petitioners to approach before the appropriate
authority/forum.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
vashudha/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 04.08.2025 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a dispute involving rival claims of title and encroachment between private persons falls within the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
If the appropriate remedy for deciding substantive title disputes lies with the Civil Court rather than the High Court in writ proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Soohan Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr.Referred¶36
Soohan Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1957 SC 529 · Who else cites this
Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors.Referred¶36
Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. (2015) SCC 423 · Who else cites this
Lalan Singh & Ors
The State of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar
The District Magistrate, Patna
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Danapur
The District Collector, Land Reforms, Danapur
Allok Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
