Shivendra Prasad Saha Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shivendra Prasad Saha Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to assail the order dated 06.02.2023 of the DCLR, Sadar Purnea before the Additional Collector, Purnea; if limitation arises in such appeal, the competent authority is to take into account that the petitioner pursued his remedy before the High Court since April, 2023.

Issue for consideration

Whether the DCLR could have refused to fix the rent of the disputed land when the petitioner's vendor (Jagat Maya Devi) held title by virtue of the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.70 of 2004 dated 18.09.2009, notwithstanding that the correction of the records of right under Section 108(K) of the B.T. Act had not been made. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Permission was accorded to the petitioner to withdraw the writ application with liberty to assail the impugned order of the DCLR, Sadar Purnea before the Additional Collector, Purnea; accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with that liberty.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files an appeal against the impugned order and the issue of limitation arises, the competent authority shall keep in mind that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court since April, 2023.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Patna, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6025 of 2023 (Satyavrat Verma, J.; order dated 28-07-2025): The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the DCLR, Sadar Purnea rejecting his prayer for fixation of rent of Plot No.642, Khata No.809, area 04 decimal, 725 Kari, village Madhopara, Ward No.6/17. He contended that his vendor, Jagat Maya Devi, held title by virtue of the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.70 of 2004 (judgment dated 18.09.2009), yet correction of the records of right under Section 108(K) of the B.T. Act had not been carried out. The State submitted that although the issue required consideration, the petitioner had an alternative remedy of moving against the DCLR's order before the Additional Collector. At the petitioner's request, permission to withdraw the writ application was accorded; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to assail the impugned order before the Additional Collector, Purnea, and it was directed that if limitation arises in such appeal, the competent authority shall keep in mind that the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before the High Court since April, 2023. No substantive view on the merits of the rent-fixation question was expressed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6025 of 2023

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

Shivendra Prasad Saha, Son of Late Tilakdhari Sah, Resident of Sarvodaya Nagar, Bhatha Bazar, P.S. K. Hat, District Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna-I.

Collector, Purnea.

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea.

Circle Officer, Purnea East.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amardeep- Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy ( GP- 18 ) Mr. Viveka Nand Singh- AC to GP-18 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

7 28-07-2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned AC to GP-18 for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant writ application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the DCLR, Sadar Purnea (Respondent No.4) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for fixing rent of Plot No.642, Khata No.809, area 04 decimal, 725 Kari situated at village Madhopara, Ward No.6/17 has been rejected.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the land in dispute from Jagat

Patna High Court CWJC No.6025 of 2023(7) dt.28-07-2025 2/3

Maya Devi in whose favour Title Suit No.70 of 2004 with respect to the land in dispute was decided. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when vendor of the petitioner was having title in her favour by virtue of judgment and decree in Title Suit No.70 of 2004, whether DCLR could have refused to fix the rent of the land in dispute on the ground that in pursuance of the judgment in Title Suit No.70 of 2004 dated 18.09.2009, the correction was not made in the records of right under Section 108(K) of the B. T. Act.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that no doubt, the issue raised by the petitioner requires consideration, but then, petitioner has alternative remedy to move against the order of the DCLR before the Additional Collector.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ application with liberty to assail the order impugned in the instant writ application before the Additional Collector, Purnea.

Permission is accorded.

Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

It is made clear that if any appeal is filed by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6025 of 2023(7) dt.28-07-2025 3/3

petitioner against the order impugned in the instant writ application and issue of limitation arises, in that event, the authority competent shall keep in mind that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court since April, 2023.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

vikash/-

U