Disposed¶33

Amarnath Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Jan 2026CWJC/1056/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment on public land/rasta (Khesra No. 1315, Khata No. 551, Thana No. 396, Village Damodarpur, Kanti, Muzaffarpur); writ of mandamus sought; petition disposed of (not allowed) with liberty to petitioner to approach appropriate authority (Circle Officer, Kanti / SDM, Muzaffarpur West) with documents; respondents to be noticed and heard; single-judge oral order, Rajiv Roy, J., dated 27-01-2026; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority/respondent with all supporting documents; respondents to be noticed and heard, and the authority to take the matter to its logical conclusion. ¶33

Amarnath Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the respondents to remove encroachment from public land bearing Khesra No. 1315, Area 6 decimal, Khata No. 551, Thana No. 396, Village Damodarpur, recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar and used as a rasta by the petitioner and other villagers. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The petitioner is permitted to approach the appropriate authority/respondent along with all documents supporting his claim against the respondents; the respondents must be noticed and heard, whereafter the authority is duty bound to take the matter to its logical conclusion.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation (liberty to pursue the claim before the appropriate authority with supporting documents, respondents to be heard).

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (CWJC No.1056 of 2026, Rajiv Roy, J, order dt. 27-01-2026): Petition seeking a writ of mandamus for removal of alleged encroachment on public land (Khesra No. 1315, Area 6 decimal, Khata No. 551, Thana No. 396, Village Damodarpur, P.S. & Anchal Kanti, Muzaffarpur), recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar and used as a rasta by the petitioner and villagers, which private respondents allegedly seek to occupy forcibly and wall off. Noting that the petitioner had repeatedly approached the Circle Officer, Kanti without result, and that the averments were vague, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner may approach the appropriate authority/respondent with all supporting documents; the respondents are to be noticed and heard, whereafter the authority is duty bound to take the matter to its logical conclusion. No statute or precedent was cited.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1056 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Amarnath Prasad Son of Late Ramautar Sah, resident of Village-Damodarpur, P.S and Anchal- Kanti, District-Muzaffarpur (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

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

¶8

District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Muzaffarpur.

¶9

Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur.

¶10

Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur West, District Muzaffarpur.

¶11

D.C.L.R. Muzaffarpur (West), District Muzaffarpur.

¶12

Ancahl Adhikari, Dist. Muzaffarpur.

¶13

Md. Parwez Alam, w/o- Late Jakir Ansari, resident of Village- Demodarpur, P.S and Anchal- Kanti, Dist. Muzaffarpur.

¶14

Kamran Rahmani @ Vickky, Son of Late Habib Mustafa Rahmani, resident of Village- Demodarpur, P.S and Anchal- Kanti, Dist. Muzaffarpur.

¶15

Rakesh Mehta, son of Late Munna Lal Mehta, resident of VillageDamodarpur P.S and Anchal- Kanti, Dist. Muzaffarpur.

¶16

Prabhat Mehta, Son of Late Munna Lal Mehta, resident of VillageDamodarpur P.S and Anchal- Kanti, Dist. Muzaffarpur.

¶17

Aashish Mehta, Son of Late Munna Lal Mehta, resident of VillageDamodarpur P.S and Anchal- Kanti, Dist. Muzaffarpur.

¶18

... ... Respondent/s

¶19

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Government Pleader (3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶20

2 27-01-2026 Heard the parties.

¶21

The present petition has been preferred for the

¶22

grant of following relief(s):

¶23

“(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or

¶24

any other writ or writs, direction or directions,

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.1056 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026 2/3

¶26

commanding upon the respondents to remove encroachment from the land bearing Khesra No. 1315, Area 6 decimal of Khata No. 551, Thana No. 396, situated in Village-Damodarpur, P.S & Anchal-Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur which is Public land recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar and is used as rasta of the petitioner and other villagers and also the Village Water accumulates there. To which the private respondents forcibly wants to occupy and to erect boundary wall & pillar obstructing the rasta of the petitioner & other villagers.

¶27

(ii) to pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”

¶28

Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he approached the Circle Officer, Kanti (Muzaffarpur) several times, the officer is not taking note of the fact.

¶29

Learned State counsel submits that if there is a personal dispute with the respondents, the petitioner has to move before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur West,

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.1056 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026 3/3

¶31

Muzaffarpur and only if he has any grievance on the public land, the same can be adjudicated by the Circle Officer, Kanti, Muzaffarpur, but the annexures/averments are vague/not clear on what the petitioner want.

¶32

In that background, the petitioner is allowed to approach the appropriate authority/respondent alongwith all the documents to support the claim against the respondents, naturally, they have to be noticed, heard, whereafter the respondents are duty bound to take the matter to its logical conclusion.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

¶34

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶35

vinayak/-

¶36

Amarnath Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath Prasad v. The State of Bihar

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

Janardan Sharma Vs The Union of India

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vijaya Kumari and Ors.

Bijay Narayan Jha Vs The Union of India

Md. Naseem Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandeshwari Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Singh Vs The State of Bihar