Letters Patent Appeal by a non-party challenging a writ order directing the writ petitioner to file a Section 11 appeal under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act with interim status quo. The Division Bench held the appellant had no role before the Writ Court and the statutory appeal had been filed, disposing of the appeal.
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 Letters Patent Appeal No.228 of 2025 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6955 of 2024
======================================================
Sanjeet Kumar Rai @ Sanjeet Kumar son of Late Shivnandan Ray, Resident of Bochaha, P.S.-Mohuddinnagar, Dist-Samastipur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kaushal Kishor, Advocate For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General (12) For the Resp. No. 9 : Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Advocate Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Advocate Mr. Ankesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rohan Sinha, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 07-07-2026
The 'purported' appellant impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6955 of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.228 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026 2/5
2024 dated 11.07.2024, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the petitioner therein, namely, Subhash Kumar @ Subhash Kumar Ray, to file an appropriate appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Meanwhile, it was directed that, for a period of four weeks, the status quo existing on the date of the judgment would be maintained to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps.
2. Admittedly, the appellant herein, Sanjeet Kumar Rai @ Sanjeet Kumar, was never a party before the Writ Court in the aforesaid matter in which the impugned judgment came to be passed.
3. It is the case of the 'purported' appellant, Sanjeet Kumar Rai @ Sanjeet Kumar, that he was a necessary party to C.W.J.C. No. 6955 of 2024 but was deliberately not impleaded as a party, thereby enabling the petitioner therein (Subhash Kumar @ Subhash Kumar Ray) to conceal material facts. It is further contended that, although he had filed a vakalatnama , he was not heard in the writ petition, and the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, failed to appreciate that the instant 'purported' appellant sought to place substantive material before the Court in the said writ petition.
4. From the submissions advanced before us, it appears that the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court, i.e., Sanjeet Kumar Rai @ Sanjeet Kumar, had
Patna High Court L.P.A No.228 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026 3/5
initially filed a complaint before the Circle Officer, Mohiuddinnagar,District-Samastipur,alleging encroachment by the respondent herein, namely, Subhash Kumar @ Subhash Kumar Ray. The Circle Officer concluded that the said Subhash Kumar @ Subhash Kumar Ray was an encroacher and sought to dispossess him of the property.
5. Aggrieved by the impending action of the Circle Officer, the said Subhash Kumar @ Subhash Kumar Ray approached the Writ Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6955 of 2024. In the said writ petition, the appellant herein, Sanjeet Kumar Rai @ Sanjeet Kumar, was neither impleaded as a party nor did he seek to be impleaded. Although learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court ought to have taken into consideration Order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to non-joinder of parties and either dismissed the petition or allowed his impleadment as a party, we are not impressed with the said submission, as it is the responsibility of the party who seeks impleadment to take steps before the concerned Court.
6. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that he had filed a vakalatnama in the matter, but the Court failed to give him a hearing in the matter. We cannot convince ourselves that, despite having filed a vakalatnama , the Court failed to hear him. Merely filing a vakalatnama without making an appearance before the Court serves no purpose. This argument is thus discarded.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.228 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026 4/5
7. Be that as it may, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the State-respondents, the dispute is essentially between respondent no. 9 and the Staterespondents in view of the action taken by the Circle Officer and has nothing to do with the appellant herein.
8. Having perused the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the learned Single Judge specifically observed as follows:
"2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Circle Officer, Mohiuddinnagar, District–Samastipur, under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, in connection with Encroachment Case No. 13 of 2023, by filing appropriate appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Liberty so sought is granted.
3. It is needless to state that for a period of four weeks from today, status quo existing as on today qua the land/house of the petitioner in question shall be maintained in order to enable the petitioner to file appropriate appeal and seek interim relief."
9. Learned counsel for respondent no. 9 submits that, in compliance of the aforesaid order, an appeal has already been preferred before the competent
Patna High Court L.P.A No.228 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026 5/5
statutory authority, and the matter registered as Encroachment Appeal No. 48 of 2024.
10. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the judgment of the learned Single Judge having been complied with and the appellant herein having no role in the Writ Court either as a petitioner or a respondent, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
11. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, as also all pending I.A.'s, if any.
( Soni Shrivastava, J) (Meenakshi Madan Rai, CJ)
Neha/-
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 08.07.2026 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a non-party to the writ petition could maintain an appeal against an order directing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedy under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act.
Whether failure to implead or hear the appellant despite a vakalatnama vitiated the Single Judge's order.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeet Kumar Rai @ Sanjeet Kumar
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department
The District Magistrate, Samastipur
Subhash Kumar @ Subhash Kumar Ray
Meenakshi Madan Rai
Soni Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
