Disposed¶28

Amit Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Jul 2026CWJC/2059/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC CWJC No.2059 of 2025, decided 06-07-2026 by Vikash Kumar, J; Amit Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and others; mandamus sought for removal of alleged encroachment by Respondents 6-9 (Ruby Devi, Dipak Chaudhary, Natho Chaudhary, Ranju Devi) over public road (5 dhur) and raiyati land (8 dhur), Khata No.18, Khesra No.80, Mauza Chhotki Rajwa, Hasanpur, Samastipur; State respondents 1-5 (Revenue and Land Reforms Deptt., DM Samastipur, SDO Rosera, CO Hasanpur); disposal premised on counter affidavit (dt. 21.08.2025) Paragraph 9 denying encroachment; no rejoinder; no statute or case law cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ application was disposed of on the basis of the State's statement (Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit) that there is no encroachment on the said road. ¶28

Amit Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ application was disposed of on the basis of the State's statement (Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit) that there is no encroachment on the said road.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondents 6 to 9 have encroached illegally and forcibly, without the owner's consent or permission, upon the public road (area 5 dhur) and the petitioner's raiyati land (area 8 dhur), adjacent to each other, Khata No.18 (old 78, new), Khesra No.80 (old 34, new), Mauza Chhotki Rajwa, P.S. Hasanpur, Dist. Samastipur, so as to warrant a writ in the nature of mandamus directing removal of the encroachment. +1 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted the statement made by learned counsel for the State (the sentence concludes 'accepted.' in the immediately following paragraph), i.e., the State's stand in Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that there is no encroachment on the said road, which the petitioner had not disputed.

¶26

Key takeaways

On that acceptance, the writ application stands disposed of.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2059 of 2025 (oral order dated 06-07-2026, Vikash Kumar, J): The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing removal of alleged illegal and forcible encroachment by private Respondents 6 to 9 over a public road measuring 5 dhur and his adjacent raiyati land measuring 8 dhur, Khata No.18 (old 78, new), Khesra No.80 (old 34, new), Mauza Chhotki Rajwa, P.S. Hasanpur, District Samastipur. The State respondents (1 to 5) filed a duly affirmed counter affidavit dated 21.08.2025, Paragraph 9 whereof asserted that 'there is no encroachment on the said road, as alleged by the petitioner'; no rejoinder was filed. Counsel for the State submitted that, in light of that statement, the application be disposed of, and the petitioner did not dispute the fact. The Court accepted the statement made by learned counsel for the State and disposed of the writ application. No costs; no statute or precedent discussed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2059 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Amit Chaudhary son of Late Lakshmi Chaudhari, resident of village- Chhotki Rajwa, ward no.- 01, P.S.- Hasanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Director, Revenue and land Reforms Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

¶9

The Sub Divisional Officer, Rosera, Dist.- Samastipur.

¶10

The Circle Officer, Hasanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.

¶11

Ruby Devi, W/o Dipak Chaudhary resident of village- Chhotaki Rajwa, Ward no.- 2, P.S.- Hasanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.

¶12

Dipak Chaudhary, Son of Ramji Chaudhary resident of village- Chhotaki Rajwa, Ward no.- 2, P.S.- Hasanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.

¶13

Natho Chaudhary, Son of Late Radha Chaudhary resident of villageChhotaki Rajwa, Ward no.- 2, P.S.- Hasanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.

¶14

Ranju Devi, Wife of Natho Chaudhary resident of village- Chhotaki Rajwa, Ward no.- 2, P.S.- Hasanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shishir Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Singh, SC-21 Ms. Shatabdi Sinha, AC to SC-21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 06-07-2026

¶17

Heard Shri Shishir Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Shatabdi Sinha, learned AC to SC-21 for the state.

¶18

The petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus direction to Respondents to remove illegal encroachment from the public road area 5 dhur and raiyati land of petitioner area 8 dhur both lands adjucent to each other Khata No.18 old 78 New Khesra No. 80 old 34 New situated at Mauza

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.2059 of 2025(2) dt.06-07-2026 2/2

¶20

chhotki Rajwa P.S Hasanpur Dist- Samastipur which was encroached by Respondent No. 6 to 9 in illegal manner and forcibly without any consent and permission of land owner and any other appropriate order, direction save and except in accordance with law.

¶21

A duly affidavited counter affidavit dated 21.08.2025 filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 5 is on record with service of copy to petitioner on 27.08.2025. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in light of statement made in Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, the present writ application may be disposed off. The petitioner has not disputed the fact.

¶23

The statement made in Paragraph 9 is reproduce here

¶24

in below:-

¶25

“9.That it is humbly submitted that there is no encroachment on the said road, as alleged by the petitioner”.

¶26

The statement made by learned counsel for state is

¶27

accepted.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶29

(Vikash Kumar, J)

¶30

Rohit/-

¶31

Amit Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Chaudhary 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

Amarjeet Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rajnish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amrit Raj Ranjan @ Amrit Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar