Tetari Devi Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.260 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Tetari Devi Wife of Degan Manjhi, Resident of Village Bujhayat, PS Sono, District Jamui.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The District Magistrate, Jamui.

¶8

The Block Education Officer, Chakai, District Jamui.

¶9

¶10

The Circle Officer, Sono, District Jamui.

¶11

Sachin Kumar, S/o Degan Manjhi, Resident of Village Bujhayat, PS Sono, District Jamui.

¶12

Arvind Kumar, S/o Degan Manjhi, Resident of Village Bujhayat, PS Sono, District Jamui.

¶13

Kundan Manjhi, S/o Degan Manjhi, Resident of Village Bujhayat, PS Sono, District Jamui.

¶14

Munita Devi, S/o Degan Manjhi, Resident of Village Bujhayat, PS Sono, District Jamui.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Standing Counsel (16) ======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶19

2 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶20

The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ

¶21

petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶22

“For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent authorities to issue a proper Basgit Parcha in favour of the petitioner and the private respondents pertaining to Khata No. 54 Plot No. 594, 595 area 43 decimal situated in Mouza-Bujhayat, Panchayat-

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.260 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 2/4

¶24

Naiyadih, Circle Sono, District Jamui under the provision of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 as the petitioner and private respondents are a landless persons belongs to BPL family.

¶25

(ii) For further direction to the Respondent Authorities to provide protection against any disturbance while residing in her dwelling house situated in the aforesaid land unless and until the petitioner is suitably rehabilitated in any other place as she is living over the same since long with her family and children.

¶26

(iii) And for any other reliefs) to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the interest of justice.”

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that she is a holder of valid BPL card and as such she becomes entitled for homestead land in accordance with the provision of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, but the State authorities in general and the District Magistrate in particular has failed to allot land to the petitioner who has claimed to be landless. Learned counsel further submitted that although a detailed representation has been filed before the District Magistrate, Jamui, for redressal of her grievance, but he has not acted on the same. The said application was filed on 10.09.2025 and subsequent to that on 16.09.2025 and then she filed complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui against the private respondents not to disturb or dispossess the petitioner from the aforesaid land.

¶28

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in absence of any valid document having been brought on record by the

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.260 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 3/4

¶30

petitioner along with the present writ petition that she was allotted permissible area of land appertaining to Khata No. 54, Plot Nos. 594, 595, area 43 decimal, situated in MouzaBujhayat, Panchayat- Naiyadih, Circle Sono, District Jamui, no order can be passed. He further submitted that the petitioner has already availed remedy before the District Court by filing a Complaint Case No. 11016(C) of 2025 on 08.09.2025, as admitted in Para-9 of the present application, it will be premature to pass any order.

¶31

Heard the parties.

¶32

Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that the petitioner is claiming as a privileged person having allotted some land appertaining to Khata No. 54, Plot Nos. 594, 595, area 43 decimal, situated in Mouza-Bujhayat, Panchayat- Naiyadih, Circle Sono, District Jamui, but no document has been adduced along with the writ petition in support of the said claim of the petitioner that she has constructed a dwelling house over the said piece of land, as well as, the petitioner has admitted that she has filed a Complaint Case No. 1016C of 2025 on 08.09.2025, this Court is constrained to pass any order in respect of the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.260 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 4/4

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶36

mantreshwar/-

¶37

U

Tetari Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tetari Devi 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

Ravikant Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Navab Ansari @ Md. Nawad Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Nagendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Shambhu Roy Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Devi Vs The State of Bihar