Dismissed¶25

Santoshi Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Nov 2025CWJC/7490/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWJC No.7490 of 2020; Santoshi Devi v. State of Bihar, Collector-cum-DM Kaimur (Bhabhua), SDM Bhabhua, DCLR Bhabhua, Circle Officer Adhaura, Deopati Singh; Patna High Court; Shailendra Singh, J; decided 10-11-2025; Article 226; cancellation of bandobasti/settlement; Misc (Cancellation of Bandobasti) Case No. 103/2016-17; order dated 11.04.2019; consequential C.O. letter dated 15.04.2020; Parwana; privileged person; Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947; Rajaswa Karamchari report; 2 acres 38.5 decimals; part-time contract worker; writ dismissed; ex parte against absent petitioner.

What did the court decide?

This court finds no merit in the writ application challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's land settlement, and the application stands dismissed. ¶25

Santoshi Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by Respondent No. 2 cancelling the settlement of land made in favour of the petitioner (and the consequential letter dated 15.04.2020) was passed on incorrect and illegal grounds without quasi-judicial application of mind and was therefore liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

This court finds no merit in the writ application challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's land settlement, and the application stands dismissed.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Having considered the State-respondents' submissions and the averments in their counter affidavit (that the petitioner's family owned 2 acres and about 38.5 decimals and her husband was employed, so she was not a privileged person at the time of settlement), the Court accepted that position and on that basis found no merit in the writ application.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Shailendra Singh, J) dismissed CWJC No.7490 of 2020 (Santoshi Devi v. State of Bihar and others), filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua)'s order dated 11.04.2019 in Misc (Cancellation of Bandobasti) Case No. 103/2016-17 — allowing respondent no.-6 Deopati Singh's application and cancelling the settlement of land earlier made in the petitioner's favour by the then Circle Officer — together with the consequential C.O. office letter dated 15.04.2020. Relying on the State's counter affidavit that the petitioner's family already owned 2 acres and about 38.5 decimals of land and her husband was employed as a part-time contract worker, and accepting the submission that she therefore did not fall within the purview of a privileged person under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 at the time of settlement, the Court found no merit in the application and dismissed it. No advocate appeared for the petitioner; Mr. Atul Shankar (AC to SC-19) appeared for the respondents.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7490 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Santoshi Devi, W/o Prabhu Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Adhaura, P.S.- Adhaura, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar Through Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Collector- cum- District Magistrate Kaimur (Bhabhua).

¶8

The Sub- Divisional Magistrate Bhabhua, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua).

¶9

The Deputy Collector Land Reform, (DCLR) Bhabhua, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua).

¶10

The Circle Officer Adhaura, P.S.- Adhaura, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua).

¶11

Deopati Singh S/o Harsu Singh Resident of Village- Adhaura, P.S.- Adhaura, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua).

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Atul Shankar, AC to SC-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶14

15 10-11-2025

¶15

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner while

¶16

Mr. Atul Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the Staterespondents is present and he is heard.

¶17

2. The instant case has been filed under Article 226 of

¶18

the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s):

¶19

"1. TThat, this is an application for quashing of the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by Respondent No. 2 in Misc (Cancellation of Bandobasti) Case No. 103/2016-17 and consequential letter issued dated 15.04.2020 by C.O. office, on the basis of order passed by the

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.7490 of 2020(15) dt.10-11-2025 2/3

¶21

Learned Collector - cum District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua) (Respondent no.-2) by which the Learned Collector has been pleased to allow the application filed by respondent no.-6, Deopati Singh and cancelled the settlement of the land made in favour of the petitioner along with some others upon incorrect, and illegal grounds without application of Quasi Judicial mind which is arbitrary one."

¶22

3. The main grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ application is the cancellation of the settlement of the land that had earlier been made in her favour by then Circle Officer. during the course of argument, it was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents that the said settlement was wrongly made in favour of the petitioner as at the time of settlement she did not fall within the purview of the privileged person as defined under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 and in this regard, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and the said settlement was made on the basis of a misconceived report submitted by Rajaswa Karamchari and the Circle Officer, Adhaura relying on the said report, the recommendation was made by the Circle Officer, Adhaura to Deputy Collector, Bhabhua who in turn recommended the same to the S.D.O. Bhabhua and accordingly the settlement case was allowed and Parwana was issued but

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.7490 of 2020(15) dt.10-11-2025 3/3

¶24

thereafter it came in the light that petitioner's family members owned 2 acres and about 38 and half decimals of land and further petitioner's husband was employed as part time contract worker and these facts clearly show that the petitioner did not come in the purview of privileged persons at the time when the settlement was made.

¶25

4. Considering the aforesaid submissions and having gone through the averments made in the counter affidavit by the State-respondents, this court finds no merit in this application, so, it stands dismissed.

¶26

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶27

Rajiv/-

¶28

Santoshi Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhumesh Choudhary Vs Archana Mukherjee @ Archana Mukherji

Vikky Mahto @ Bikki Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kushwaha @ Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Rajesh Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Neelam Devi Vs Rudra Pratap Singh

Tarni Ram, Vs The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary

Amod Kumar Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar