Manish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate Ms.Reema Sahay, Advocate Ms.Pallavi Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP 23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 31-01-2026 Heard Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh along with

¶16

Ms.Reema Sahay and Ms. Pallavi Kumari, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned AC to GP 23 for the State.

¶17

The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶18

“That this is an appropriate writ for direction/order to the District Magistrate, Patna as well as the Circle Officer, Dulhin Bazar to consider the case of mutation in the name of purchaser

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.1404 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026 2/4

¶20

petitioner Manish Kumar relating to land bearing Mauza-Bhadbhesar, Thana-Dulhin Bazar, Sub Registry-Bikram, Sadar Registry and DistrictPatna, Halka-Bharatpura, Anchal-Dulhin Bazar, Thana 288, Tauzi No.Bihar Government, Khata No.67, Plot No.247, Area 01 Acre 78 Decimal purchased by four persons including petitioner namely (i) Manish Kumar, S/O Raj Kumar Gupta, (ii) Om Prakash Gupta, S/O Late Manikchandra Saw, (iii) Ashok Kumar S/O Late Rajeshwar Prasad (iv) Manoj Kumar, S/O Late Dadan Prasad, who have purchased the land from (i) Chandeshwar Prasad, (ii) Kameshwar Prasad, (iii) Baleshwar Yadav, (iv) Umesh Prasad, all sons of Late Dhanukdhari Yadav and also a direction to the respondent concern to pass a reasonable order in the matter for the delay in mutation proceeding and quash the rejection order to mutation order if any other relief/reliefs to the petitioner as your lordships may be deem fit and proper.”

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to harassment on account of the illegal and arbitrary actions of the Circle Officer, for reasons best known to him, as well as, his predecessors. Learned counsel contended that the jamabandi has not been created despite the existence of Sale-deed No. 3143 dated 26.05.1947 and Sale-deed No. 6165 dated 18.05.2022, pursuant to which the petitioner has been continuously paying land revenue to the State Government. Learned counsel further submitted that the conduct of the Circle Officer deserves to be deprecated and in this regard, the action is required to be taken

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.1404 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026 3/4

¶23

against him for delaying in not creating jamabandi so that the same can be uploaded on the official website for facilitating online payment of the revenue.

¶24

Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the Circle Officer, he may put his grievance before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector concerned to take notice of the same or he has remedy against such illegal action before the appropriate Forum. Learned counsel further submitted that the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition is not maintainable and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

¶25

Heard the parties.

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Circle Officer, who has allegedly not created jamabandi on the basis of sale-deeds, which he has referred in the present writ petition. The petitioner has liberty to make a detail application/representation before the District Magistrate-cumCollector concerned for redressal of his grievance and the District Magistrate-cum-Collector must be cautious of right of a citizen under Article 300A of the Constitution of India in respect of his claim on the basis of two sale-deeds.

¶27

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector is directed

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.1404 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026 4/4

¶29

to summon the Circle Officer to come along with all the revenue records relating to the land, which the petitioner claims and see that the Circle Office ensures to act in accordance with law by generating online jamabandi in respect of the land in question well within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of this order. In case the claim of the petitioner is not in accordance with law, a reasoned order after giving due opportunity of hearing is required to be passed expeditiously considering the matter is pending since Year, 2022.

¶30

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector must ensure to take action by directing all the Circle Officers concerned within his jurisdiction to act in accordance with law and in case, he finds that inaction is deliberate on their part, they must be held responsible, so that the poor citizens may not be denied their right as granted under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶31

With the above observation/direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶33

chn/-

¶34

U

Manish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Surunga Devi @ Suranga Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Kallu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rita Devi Vs The Union of India

Devnandan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Sayed @ Sayed Alam @ Md. Said Vs The State of Bihar