Shyama Kant Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

2 17-03-2026 Heard the parties.

¶22

The present petition has been preferred for the

¶23

following relief(s):

¶24

“I. For issuance of an appropriate

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026 2/6

¶26

writ/order or direction(s) for directing and commanding the respondent authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by the Respondents No.- 11 to 13 upon the settled land of the petitioner under Thana No. 22 bearing Khata No. 12, Plot No. 190/1, Plot No. 190/3, situated in VillageBankatwa, P.S. Ghorasahan, now Police Station. Jitna, Area 1.80 acres, was settled to the petitioner vide Case No.- 9/86-87. Anumandaliya Record No.- 519/30.06.87, Anchal Record No.-9/1986-87

¶27

II. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order or direction(s) for commanding and directing the respondent authorities to protect the petitioner in cultivation of his land, which was duly settled to him, and if necessary, the settled land be measured, again under the law for which the petitioner is ready to Mapi/measurement cost, excluding the remaining land of plot no. 190.

¶28

III. For any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner is entitled for.”

¶29

At the outset, learned State counsel submits that under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026 3/6

¶31

2009 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner has the remedy.

¶32

Section 4 of ‘the Act’ read as follows:

¶33

“4. Jurisdiction and authority to resolve

¶34

disputes.- (1) The Competent Authority shall have jurisdiction and authority to hear and adjudicate, on an application or complaint or on any application referred to by a Prescribed Authority or officer, any issue arising out of following types of disputes:-

¶35

(a) Unauthorised and unlawful dispossession of any settlee or allottee from any land or part thereof, settled with or allotted to him under any Act contained in Schedule-1 to this Act by issuance of any settlement document/parcha by a Competent Authority;

¶36

(b) Restoration of possession of settled/allotted land in favour of legally entitled settlee/allottee or his successors/heirs, upon adjudication of unauthorized and unlawful dispossession;

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026 4/6

¶38

(c) Threatened dispossession of a legally entitled settlee/allottee;

¶39

(d) Any of the matters enumerated in (a), (b) and (c) above appertaining to raiyati land;

¶40

(e) Partition of land holding;

¶41

(f) Correction of entry made in the Record of Rights including map/ survey map;

¶42

(g) Declaration of the right of a

¶43

person;

¶44

(h) Boundary disputes;

¶45

(i) Construction of unauthorized structure; and

¶46

(j) Lis pendens transfer.

¶47

(2) The Competent Authority shall not have jurisdiction to review or reopen any finally concluded and adjudicated proceeding under any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1. The Competent Authority shall exercise his authority for resolving the dispute brought before him on

¶48

Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026 5/6

¶49

the basis of any final order passed by any of the authorities empowered to do so in the Acts contained in Schedule-1 of this Act.

¶50

(3) The Competent Authority shall not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any fresh rights of allottee/settlee or a raiyat which is not yet determined and is required to be determined in accordance with provisions contained in any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1:Provided that where rights of allottee/settlee or raiyat are already determined under any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1, the Competent Authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain cases appertaining to matters enumerated in sub-section (1).

¶51

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) and (3) hereinabove, if no provision is made in any of the Acts contained in Schedule-1 for determination of rights of allottee/settlee or raiyat and claimed right is yet to be determined, it shall be open to the Competent Authority to finally determine

¶52

Patna High Court CWJC No.3583 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026 6/6

¶53

such right.

¶54

wherever it appears to him that the case instituted before him involves complex question of adjudication of title, he shall close the proceeding and leave it open to parties to seek remedies before the competent Civil Court.”

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he is ready to approach the concerned authority, they generally take longer time in deciding it.

¶56

Considering the submission of the parties as also taking note of Section 4 of ‘the Act’, let the petitioner prefer a proper petition under ‘the Act’ in next eight weeks before the Authority concerned who shall be noticing/hearing and taking the matter to its logical conclusion preferably within a period of one year from the date, the petition is preferred.

¶57

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶58

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶59

Adnan/-

¶60

U

Shyama Kant Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyama Kant 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekha Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Bahadur Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shabbir Ahmad Vs The State of Bihar

Jaiprakash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Sushil Mishra Vs The State of Bihar