Dismissed¶34

Gopal Ji Mishra v. Bijendra Prasad

Patna HC6 Apr 2026L.P.A/123/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, L.P.A No.123 of 2026, decided 06-04-2026 by Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ and Harish Kumar, J (oral judgment per the Chief Justice). Dismissal of appeal against Single Judge's order dated 14.07.2025 in C.W.J.C. No. 10814 of 2025 directing the Circle Officer, Buxar to act upon Annexure-P5 (notice dated 08.07.2023). Non-party appellants denied hearing on groundless plea; no paversity/perversity found; liberty to appear before Circle Officer for final order after hearing all aggrieved parties; revenue/land matter, Sonbarsa, Buxar, Bihar.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit and the interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of. The appellants may appear before the Circle Officer, Buxar, who is expected to pass the final order after hearing all the aggrieved parties.

Gopal Ji Mishra Vs Bijendra Prasad — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the Letters Patent Appeal should succeed on the ground that the appellants, though not parties to C.W.J.C. No. 10814 of 2025, ought to have been heard by the learned Single Judge because a similar notice is allegedly the subject matter of a writ petition filed by the appellants.

¶29

Court's answer

The appellants' submission finds no substance: there is neither any averment pertaining to filing of any writ petition against the notice dated 08.07.2023 by the appellants, nor has such ground been taken in the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

There is no perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge issuing a direction to the Circle Officer, Buxar to act upon Annexure-P5.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal by seven residents of Sonbarsa (Buxar) against the order dated 14.07.2025 of a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10814 of 2025, filed by Respondent No. 1 Bijendra Prasad, whereby the Circle Officer, Buxar was directed to act upon Annexure-P5 — the Circle Officer's own notice dated 08.07.2023 — in accordance with law within six weeks. The appellants, who were not parties to the writ petition, argued they should have been heard since a similar notice was allegedly the subject matter of their own writ petition. Held (Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ): the submission lacked substance, there being no averment of any writ petition by the appellants against the notice dated 08.07.2023 nor any such ground in the appeal, and no perversity was found in the Single Judge's direction. Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit; interlocutory application(s) disposed of; appellants left free to appear before the Circle Officer, Buxar, who is expected to pass the final order after hearing all aggrieved parties.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.123 of 2026

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10814 of 2025

¶4

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

¶5

Gopal Ji Mishra, Son of Late Vasudev Mishra, resident of Village-Sonbarsa, P.O.-Sonbarsa, P.S.-Buxar (Industrial), District-Buxar.

¶6

Suryabansh Mishra, Son of Late Nanaku Mishra, resident of VillageSonbarsa, P.O.-Sonbarsa, P.S.-Buxar (Industrial), District-Buxar.

¶7

Chhakan Ji Mishra, Son of Late Nitya Nand Mishra, resident of VillageSonbarsa, P.O.-Sonbarsa, P.S.-Buxar (Industrial), District-Buxar.

¶8

Ganesh Ji Pandey, Son of Late Gori Shankar Pandey, resident of VillageSonbarsa, P.O.-Sonbarsa, P.S.-Buxar (Industrial), District-Buxar.

¶9

Niraj Kumar Mishra, Son of Janardan Mishra, resident of Village-Sonbarsa, P.O.-Sonbarsa, P.S.-Buxar (Industrial), District-Buxar.

¶10

Laxman Mishra, Son of Vindhyachal Mishra, resident of Village-Sonbarsa, P.O.-Sonbarsa, P.S.-Buxar (Industrial), District-Buxar.

¶11

Kamlesh Kumar Rai, Son of Late Bharat Rai, resident of Village-Sonbarsa, P.O.-Sonbarsa, P.S.-Buxar (Industrial), District-Buxar.

¶12

... ... Appellants

¶13

Versus

¶14

Bijendra Prasad Son of Late Khublal Ram, resident of Village-Sonbarsa, P.O.-Sonbarsa, P.S.-Buxar (Industrial), District-Buxar.

¶15

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶16

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

¶17

The District Collector cum Magistrate, Buxar, Bihar.

¶18

The Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar, Bihar.

¶19

The Circle Officer, Buxar, Bihar.

¶20

... ... Respondents

¶21

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

¶22

Appearance :

¶23

For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Shivam Narayan Pandey, Advocate For the State : Ms. Surekha Kumari, A.C. to G.P. 18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

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

¶25

Date : 06-04-2026

¶26

Patna High Court L.P.A No.123 of 2026 dt.06-04-2026 2/3

¶27

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10814 of 2025.

¶28

The appellants were not the party in the writ petition which was filed by one Bijendra Prasad @ Vijendra Prasad, Respondent No. 1 herein. While disposing of the writ petition, a simple direction was issued to the Circle Officer, Buxar to act upon Annexure-P5 to the writ petition in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order without being prejudiced by the order of this Court; and Annexure-P5 is nothing but a notice issued by the Circle Officer, Buxar dated 08.07.2023.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since similar notice is also the subject matter of a writ petition which has been filed by the appellants before this Court, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10814 of 2025 should have brought this matter to the notice of the learned Single Judge and the appellants should have been offered opportunity of hearing.

¶30

We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, inasmuch as, there is neither any averments pertaining to filing of any writ petition

¶31

Patna High Court L.P.A No.123 of 2026 dt.06-04-2026

¶32

3/3

¶33

against the notice dated 08.07.2023 by the appellants nor such ground has been taken in the Letters Patent Appeal in that respect. Moreover, we do not find any perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge by issuing a direction to the Circle Officer, Buxar to act upon Annexure-P5.

¶34

Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

¶35

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶36

It is open to the appellants to appear before the Circle Officer, Buxar and it is expected that the Circle Officer, Buxar shall pass the final order after hearing all the aggrieved parties.

¶37

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

¶38

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶39

P.K.P./-

¶40

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	07.04.2026
Transmission Date

Gopal Ji Mishra v. Bijendra Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Ji Mishra v. Bijendra Prasad

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

Ram Bilas Mehtar Vs The State of Bihar

Shanti Devi and Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Chhotiya @ Chhoti Sahni Vs The State Of Bihar

Vipul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mahesh Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Nand Kumar Vs The State of Bihar