Disposed¶29

Sita Ram Sahu @ Sita Ram Sah v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Jan 2026CWJC/198/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CWJC No. 198 of 2026, decided 13-01-2026 by Anil Kumar Sinha, J. Land measurement/demarcation dispute at Mauja Chainsinghpatti, P.S. and District Supaul (khata nos. 32, 40, 146/K; plot nos. 3234, 3236, 3238, 3234/3707). Petitioner Sita Ram Sahu @ Sita Ram Sah challenged the D.C.L.R., Supaul order dated 13.04.2023 in Measurement Appeal No. 5 of 2022-23 / Demarcation Appeal no. 05 of 2022-23 remanding the measurement case to the Circle Officer, Supaul for fresh measurement; remand upheld as infirmity-free; petition disposed of with liberty to seek measurement. Counsel: Kamala Kant Tiwary for petitioner; Manoj Kumar Ambastha, Standing Counsel (26) for respondents. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the Circle Officer, Supaul for measurement.

Sita Ram Sahu @ Sita Ram Sah Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.198 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Sita Ram Sahu @ Sita Ram Sah son of Late Shivlal Sahu @ Shivlal Sah, resident of Village and Post Chainsinghpatti, Ward No. 04, P.S. and District - Supaul (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate -cum- Collector, Supaul.

¶8

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Supaul.

¶9

The Circle Officer, Supaul.

¶10

Madan Sah, son of Late Buchay Sah, resident of Village and Post - Chainsinghpatti, Ward No. 04, P.S. and District - Supaul (Bihar).

¶11

Pradeep Sah, son of Late Buchay Sah, resident of Village and Post - Chainsinghpatti, Ward No. 04, P.S. and District - Supaul (Bihar).

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kamala Kant Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, Standing Counsel (26)

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 13-01-2026 1. Heard the parties.

¶18

The petitioner has filed the present writ application being aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by D.C.LR., Supaul in Measurement Appeal No. 5 of 2022-23 filed by the father of respondent nos. 5 & 6.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father purchased a piece of land fully described in

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.198 of 2026(2) dt.13-01-2026 2/4

¶21

paragraph no. 4 of the writ application and a house was constructed upon 0.12 decimal of plot no. 3236, 3238 and plot no. 3234 / 3707 having an area of 9 decimal land. The entire area of plot no. 3234, 3707 is 24 decimal in which 14 decimal land purchased by the ancestor of the petitioner. 05 decimal of land in the Southern side was sold in favour of ancestors of respondent no. 5 & 6 but the father of the petitioner applied before the Circle Officer, Supaul for measurement of khata No. 32, plot no. 3234 (14 decimal), khata no. 40, plot no. 3236 & 3238 area 12 decimal and khata no. 146/K, plot no. 3234 / 3707 (14 decimal) situated in the village Mauja - Chainsinghpatti, P.S. No. 149, P.S. + Ancial - Supaul, District - Supaul. Notices were issued to the Anchal Amin, the petitioner’s father and the boundary raiyats and date of measurement was fixed on 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 5 & 6 appeared during the course of measurement but did not put their signature on the notice. One of the boundary raiyats was also present after the measurement was done. The father of respondent no. 5 & 6 filed Demarcation Appeal no. 05 of 2022-23 before the D.C.L.R., Supaul and the learned D.C.L.R., Supaul called for the L.C.R. but without

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.198 of 2026(2) dt.13-01-2026 3/4

¶24

waiting for the L.C.R. passed the final order on 13.04.2023 in the measurement appeal by which the measurement case has been remanded back to the Circle Officer, Supaul for fresh measurement after following all the procedures.

¶25

Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, learned Standing Counsel - 26 submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by virtue of remand inasmuch as learned D.C.L.R., Supaul in the impugned order has taken note of the irregularity committed during the course of measurement by the Circle Officer, Supaul and remanded the matter back to the C.O., Supaul with a direction that after having received the application for measurement from any of the parties the Circle Officer, Supaul shall start fresh measurement process as per procedure and after perusing the necessary materials / evidence shall ensure a fresh measurement of the land in question.

¶26

Considering the submissions made by the parties and the nature of order passed by the D.C.L.R., Supaul, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order inasmuch as the learned D.C.L.R., Supaul has only remitted the matter back and has directed for fresh measurement after following due process.

¶27