Disposed¶36

Jasumati Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Feb 2026L.P.A/474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court LPA disposed of — alleged violation of natural justice, writ disposed of without notice to Respondent No. 6 — order sheet shows appellant appeared and was heard by Circle Officer, Purnahiya — disputed questions of fact not adjudicable in Letters Patent Appeal — alternative remedy against Circle Officer's final order — Bihar land allotment/encroachment, possession restored to settled beneficiaries 15.06.2025 — Memo No. 459 dated 12-8-2021, Collector, Sheohar — C.W.J.C. No. 12486 of 2023 — Jasumati Devi v. State of Bihar.

What did the court decide?

From the order sheet of the Circle Officer, Purnahiya, the appellant had already entered her appearance and was heard; the grievance of denial of notice/natural justice was therefore not accepted on the record of this appeal. ¶33

Jasumati Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the appellant (Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition) suffers from non-compliance of the principle of natural justice.

¶28

Court's answer

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Disputed questions of fact are not likely to be adjudicated in a Letters Patent Appeal.

¶33

Key takeaways

Against the final order passed by the Circle Officer, Purnahiya, the alternative remedy is available and it is open to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A No. 474 of 2025, Patna High Court, decided 23-02-2026) by Jasumati Devi against the order dated 24.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12486 of 2023, whereby the writ petition of Reeta Devi and Surji Devi was disposed of with a direction to the Circle Officer, Purnahiya to take a decision in accordance with Memo No. 459 dated 12-8-2021 issued by the Collector, Sheohar, within two months — without issuing notice to the appellant, who was Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition. The appellant's main ground was denial of an opportunity of hearing, i.e., non-compliance with natural justice. Held (oral judgment per Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ; coram: the Chief Justice and Harish Kumar, J), disposing of the appeal: the order sheet of the Circle Officer, Purnahiya shows the appellant entered appearance and was present on 29.03.2025, made her submission, and the matter was heard on 19.04.2025, 30.04.2025, 08.05.2025, 09.05.2025, 26.05.2025 and 15.06.2025, on which date the final order was passed; notice was issued to her. Per the State's supplementary counter affidavit, the encroached land was vacated and possession restored to the settled beneficiaries on 15.06.2025, and notice was issued to the appellant for adjudication of rival claims. Disputed questions of fact are not likely to be adjudicated in a Letters Patent Appeal; against the final order of the Circle Officer, Purnahiya the appellant has an alternative remedy, and it is open to her to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.474 of 2025

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12486 of 2023

¶4

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

¶5

Jasumati Devi W/o Jagarnath Ram, Resident of Village- Kashopur, P.O.Bairiya, P.S.- Purnahiya, District- Sheohar (P.S. name wrongly furnished in the writ petition)

¶6

... ... Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. (Respondent no. 1 wrongly described in the writ petition as The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of Bihar).

¶9

The District Collector, Sheohar. (Bihar as described in the writ is not required)

¶10

The Additional Collector, Sheohar. (Respondent no. 3, Additional Collector, Purnahiya wrongly described in the writ).

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheohar. (Respondent no. 4, The Sub Divisional Officer, Purnahiya wrongly described in Writ).

¶12

The Circle Officer, Purnahiya Anchal, Sheohar.

¶13

Reeta Devi, W/o Umesh Ram, resident of village - Kashopur, P.O. - Bairiya, P.S. Purnahiya, District- Sheohar( Village and P.S- Wrongly described in the writ petition).

¶14

Surji Devi, W/o Chandeshwar Ram, Resident of Village- Kashopur, P.O. - Bairiya, P.S.- Purnahiya, District - Sheohar (village and P.S. wrongly described in the writ petition)

¶15

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12) For the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. Sameer Sawarn, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶16

Date : 23-02-2026

¶17

Patna High Court L.P.A No.474 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026 2/5

¶18

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant, Jasumati Devi challenging the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12486 of 2023.

¶19

The aforesaid writ petition was filed by one Reeta Devi and another namely, Surji Devi, in which the appellant was Respondent No. 6 and following reliefs was sought for:

¶20

“I. For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus direction to the Respondent authorities to secure the possession of the land of the petitioners which was allotted them under the scheme of, Government of Bihar.

¶21

II. For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to restrain the private respondent who are encroaching the Land of the Petitioners by using man and muscle power.

¶22

III. For a direction to the respondent to refrain from victimizing the petitioners.

¶23

IV. For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitle to in the facts and circumstances of the case beside, as also the interim relief during pendency of the writ application.”

¶24

The learned Single Judge has been pleased to dispose of the matter on 24.02.2025 without issuing notice to the appellant, who was the Respondent No. 6, with the

¶25

Patna High Court L.P.A No.474 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026 3/5

¶26

following direction:

¶27

“8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Circle Officer, Purnahiya to take a decision in accordance with the direction of the District Magistrate as contained in Memo No. 459 dated 12-8-2021 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if the direction contained in Memo No. 459 dated 12-8-2021 issued by the Collector, Sheohar, has not been challenged before any superior forum.”

¶28

The main ground that has been taken by the appellant/respondent No. 6 to the writ petition is that no opportunity of hearing was provided to her while passing the impugned order and therefore, it suffers from non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. When the matter was taken up on 08.01.2026 after noting down the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, we made a query to the learned counsel for the State as to whether the Circle Officer, Purnahiya has proceeded as per the order of this Court and whether any notice has been issued to the appellant Jasumati Devi, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 has filed the supplementary counter affidavit wherein in paragraph nos. 8 and 9, it is stated as follows:

¶29

“8. That following the due process of law, the

¶30

Patna High Court L.P.A No.474 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026 4/5

¶31

encroached land was vacated and possession was restored to the settled beneficiaries on 15.06.2025.

¶32

9. That regarding the Appellant's claim of lack of notice, it is submitted that this office has subsequently issued notice to the Appellant, Jasumati Devi, for the adjudication of rival claims as per the observations of this Hon’ble Court.”

¶33

Though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no notice has been issued to the appellant, however the order sheet of the Circle Officer, Purnahiya has been annexed to such affidavit, which shows that the appellant remained present on 29.03.2025 and made her submission and thereafter, the matter was taken up on 19.04.2025, 30.04.2025, 08.05.2025, 09.05.2025, 26.05.2025 and 15.06.2025. On 15.06.2025, the final order was passed. The notice, which has been issued to the appellant, has also been annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit. Though the learned counsel for the appellant disputed the same but since disputed question of fact are not likely to be adjudicated in this Letters Patent Appeal and from the order sheet, it appears that the appellant had already entered her appearance and she was heard and moreover, against the final order passed by the Circle Officer, Purnahiya, the alternative remedy is available to challenge the same. It is open to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy

¶34

Patna High Court L.P.A No.474 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026 5/5

¶35

in accordance with law.

¶36

Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed

¶37

of.

¶38

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

¶39

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶40

shailendra/-

¶41

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 25.02.2026 Transmission Date

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 24.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12486 of 2023 disposing of the writ petition (filed by Reeta Devi and Surji Devi) with a direction to the Circle Officer, Purnahiya to take a decision in accordance with Memo No. 459 dated 12-8-2021 within two months, passed without issuing notice to the appellant, who was Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition.¶24
Learned Single Judge, Patna High Court · 24.02.2025
Prior proceeding
Writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 12486 of 2023 filed by Reeta Devi and Surji Devi seeking writs of mandamus for possession of land allotted under a Government of Bihar scheme and restraint against private respondents encroaching the land; the appellant was Respondent No. 6 therein.¶19
Prior proceeding
Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Circle Officer, Purnahiya to take a decision in accordance with the District Magistrate's direction contained in Memo No. 459 dated 12-8-2021 within two months, if the memo issued by the Collector, Sheohar had not been challenged before any superior forum.¶27
Prior proceeding
Letters Patent Appeal taken up by the Division Bench on 08.01.2026; the Court noted the appellant's contention and queried the State on whether the Circle Officer had proceeded as per the order and whether notice had been issued to the appellant; supplementary counter affidavit was filed.¶28
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the Single Judge's direction, the Circle Officer, Purnahiya conducted proceedings; the order sheet shows the appellant remained present on 29.03.2025, made her submission, and the matter was taken up on 19.04.2025, 30.04.2025, 08.05.2025, 09.05.2025, 26.05.2025 and 15.06.2025.¶33
Prior proceeding
Final order passed by the Circle Officer, Purnahiya on 15.06.2025.¶33
Prior proceeding
In the supplementary counter affidavit (para 8), the State stated that following due process the encroached land was vacated and possession was restored to the settled beneficiaries on 15.06.2025.¶31
Prior proceeding
In the supplementary counter affidavit (para 9), the State stated that notice was subsequently issued to the appellant for adjudication of rival claims as per the observations of the Court.¶32

Jasumati Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasumati Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Firoj @ Md. Parvez Vs State of Bihar

Pramod Sah Vs State of Bihar

Bajrangi Rai Vs State of Bihar

Vivek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Vs The Patliputra University

Subodh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar