Disposed¶34

Md. Safi Ahmad @ Safi Ahmad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Dec 2025CWJC/3233/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Boundary wall blocking right of way / ingress-outgress to agricultural land; writ of mandamus sought against private respondent (education society); writ jurisdiction declined for disputed factual questions requiring evidence; relegation to civil court; liberty to file suit with limitation protection (four weeks, exclusion of writ-petition pendency); Article 226; Patna High Court; CWJC 3233 of 2022; Mauza Dhokara, Sanjhauli, Rohtas; alternative remedy / civil court forum; no costs or quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance; if the civil suit is filed within four weeks, the period spent in the writ petition shall be excluded while computing limitation. ¶34

Md. Safi Ahmad @ Safi Ahmad Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.7 constructed a boundary wall over all the lands surrounding the petitioners' land, blocking their passage for ingress and outgress to their agricultural land, warranting a direction for removal of the wall. +1 more

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The dispute between the petitioners and Respondent No.7 relating to the alleged violation of the petitioners' right of passage to their agricultural land requires sufficient evidence from both sides and cannot be adjudicated by the Court under its writ jurisdiction.

¶33

Key takeaways

The best remedy available to the petitioners for redressal of their grievance is before the Civil Court.ratio¶33
The writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance.ratio¶34
If the petitioners file the civil suit within four weeks, the period spent by them in this writ petition shall be excluded while computing the limitation period for that civil suit.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 (Patna High Court, CWJC No.3233 of 2022, Shailendra Singh, J., decided 05-12-2025): Petitioners sought mandamus for removal of a boundary wall allegedly constructed by private Respondent No.7 (Brothers of Sant Gabriyal Education Society) over lands surrounding their agricultural plots (Khata no.2, plot no.273, 55 decimals; Khata no.41, plot no.272, 40 decimals, Mauza Dhokara, P.S. Sanjhauli, District Rohtas), blocking ingress and outgress. HELD: The dispute is inter se two private parties and concerns alleged violation of the petitioners' right of passage; it requires evidence from both sides and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction — the Civil Court is the best remedy. Petition disposed of with liberty to sue; if the civil suit is filed within four weeks, the period spent in the writ petition is excluded while computing limitation.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3233 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Md. Safi Ahmad @ Safi Ahmad Son of Md. Salim Resident of Vilalge and P.O.-Udaypur, P.S.-Sanjhauli, District-Rohtas. At Present Resident of Qr. No. f-116, B.T.P.S., Chak Bal, P.S.-Chatiya, District-Begusarai.

¶4

Md. Anwar Sadat Ansari Son of Late Ahmad Ansari Resident of Village- and P.O.-Udaypur, P.s.-Sanjhauli, District-Rohtas.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The District Magistrate Rohtas at Sasaram

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikramgnaj District-Rohtas.

¶13

The Circle Officer, Sanjhauli, District-Rohtas.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶15

The S.H.O. Sanjhauli Police Station, District-Rohtas.

¶16

Brothers of Sant Gabriyal Education Society, Ranchi, Jharkhand Representative Jatrom Michel Son of Late Tobiyas Jatrom, Resident of 128 Kurji Patliputra, P.S.-Patliputra, District-Patna.

¶17

... ... Respondent/s

¶18

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

¶19

Appearance :

¶20

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan (SC25) ======================================================

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶22

3 05-12-2025

¶23

The instant writ petition has been filed by the

¶24

petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief(s):-

¶25

“ 1. That the petitioners craves indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, command/commands dire-cting the respondents to remove the boundary wall which has been constructed by Respondent no.7 with the help of local authority over all the surrounding

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.3233 of 2022(3) dt.05-12-2025 2/3

¶27

plots of the lands of petitioners due to which the Rasta of the petitioners for outgress and ingress over their agricultural land bearing Khata no.2, plot no.273, area 55 decimals and Khata no.41, Plot no.272, area 40 decimals situated in Mauza Dhokara, P.S.-Sanjhaula, District-Rohtas has been blocked due to which the petitioners are unable to do their agricultural work over the aforesaid land and they are suffering irreparable loss and any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

2. Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned SC-25 for the State-respondents are present and they are heard.

¶29

3. The main grievance raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that private Respondent No. 7 has constructed a boundary wall over all the lands surrounding the petitioners’ land, due to which the petitioners’ passage for ingress and outgress has completely been blocked, resulting in their inability to carry out agricultural work on their land.

¶30

4. It is submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that Respondent No. 5, in his counter affidavit, has mentioned that in the presence of the S.H.O., Sanjhauli Police Station, after hearing the petitioner and the representative of Respondent No. 7, it was ordered that Respondent No. 7 shall not make

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.3233 of 2022(3) dt.05-12-2025 3/3

¶32

any obstruction in the petitioners’ agricultural work, and this statement in itself proves the petitioners’ allegation.

¶33

5. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that the above-mentioned dispute is between two private parties, the petitioners and Respondent No. 7 and relates to the alleged violation of the petitioners’ right of passage pertaining to ingress and outgress to their agricultural land. The issue requires sufficient evidence from both sides, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. The best remedy available to the petitioners for redressal of their grievance is before the Civil Court.

¶34

6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance.

¶35

7. If the petitioners file the civil suit within four weeks from today, then the period spent by the petitioners in this writ petition shall be excluded while computing the limitation period for the said civil suit.

¶36

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶37

maynaz/-

¶38

Md. Safi Ahmad @ Safi Ahmad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Safi Ahmad @ Safi Ahmad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalash Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Ramdev Darve Vs The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary

Sudhir Prasad Singh @ Sudheer Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sikendra Kumar @ Sikendra Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Jaganath Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Nagendra Jha Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar