Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Patna HC
2026
Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi Vs The State of BiharDhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi v. The State of Bihar

Disposed¶30

Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Jul 2026CWJC/5796/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CWJC No.5796 of 2026; decided 13-07-2026; Justice Rajiv Roy; petitioner Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi; respondents incl. State of Bihar (Revenue & Land Reforms), Director of Consolidation, Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer Bihiya/Bhojpur, and private respondent Awanikant Pandey; writ petition withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedy before competent Civil Court; stay of consolidation entry sought; Case No. 199/1985-86; section 12(U) of the consolidation act; RTI reply dated 04.12.2023; non-existent records; village Kalyanur Thana No. 87, Khata No. 485, Chak Khesara Nos., Area 6.19 Decimal; restraint on sale/transfer/alienation and third-party interest; counsel Uday Prasad Singh; Government Pleader (22)/K.K. Singh.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to withdraw the writ petition and pursue the remedy before a competent Civil Court (State counsel had no objection).

Why is it important?

After some argument, the petitioner's counsel prayed for withdrawal of the petition to pursue the remedy before a competent Civil Court, and the Court granted that liberty. ¶28

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to withdraw the writ petition and pursue the remedy before a competent Civil Court (State counsel had no objection).

Issue for consideration

Whether the operation and implementation of the consolidation entry made in favour of respondent No. 5 in Case No. 199/1985-86 under section 12(U) of the consolidation act, allegedly based on non-existent records per the RTI reply dated 04.12.2023, should be stayed (framed in the relief clause; not adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

After some argument, the petitioner's counsel prayed for withdrawal of the petition to pursue the remedy before a competent Civil Court, and the Court granted that liberty.

Key takeaways

Granting the liberty to withdraw and pursue the Civil Court remedy, the writ petition was disposed of; no substantive issue was adjudicated.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J.), CWJC No.5796 of 2026, disposed of on 13-07-2026. Petitioner Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi had sought (i) a stay of the alleged consolidation entry made in favour of respondent No. 5 (Awanikant Pandey) in Case No. 199/1985-86 under section 12(U) of the consolidation act, said to be based on non-existent records per an RTI reply dated 04.12.2023, (ii) a direction to the Consolidation Officer not to permit sale, transfer or alienation of the lands at village Kalyanur Thana No. 87, Khata No. 485 (Area 6.19 Decimal), and (iii) restraints on respondent No. 5 creating third-party interests during pendency. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the petition to pursue the remedy before a competent Civil Court; learned State counsel raised no objection. Granting said liberty, the writ petition was disposed of. No substantive issue was adjudicated and no precedent value attaches to the merits.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5796 of 2026

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

Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi Son of Late Ramadhar Ojha, Resident of Village and P.O.-Kalyanpur, P.S.-Bihiya, District- Bhojpur At Ara-802154.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna.

The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna.

The Consolidation Officer, Block Bihiya Circle, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Circle- Bihiya District- Bhojpur at Ara.

Awanikant Pandey, Son of Hardeo Pandey, Resident of Village- Agarpura, P.O.- Bamangawa, P.S.- Naya Mohammadpur, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (22) : Mr. K.K. Singh, AC to GP-22 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

ORAL ORDER

3 13-07-2026 Heard the parties.

The present petition has been preferred for the grant

of following relief(s):

“(i) stay the operation and implementation of

the alleged consolidation entry made in favour of the respondents No. 5 in Case No. 199/1985-86 under section 12(U) of the consolidation act as the same appears to be based on non-existent records as per the RTI reply dated 04.12.2023.

(ii) direct the respondent No. 3 the consolidation officer not to grant any permission for sale, transfer or alienation of the land in question situated at village Kalyanur Thana No.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5796 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026 2/2

87, Khata No. 485, Chak Khesara No. 1222, 1719, 1118, 383, 408, 559, 380, 1495, 387, 420, 546, 751, 1342, 1173, Area, 6.19 Decimal, during pendency of the present writ petition.

(iii) further restrain respondents No. 5 creating any third party interest or executing any sale deed with respect to the lands in question during the pendency of this writ petition on as the lands in question are still undivided properties.

(iv) pass any other order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition to pursue the remedy before a competent Civil Court.

Learned State counsel has no objection.

Granting said liberty, the writ petition is disposed

of.

(Rajiv Roy, J)

vinayak/-

U

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the operation and implementation of the consolidation entry made in favour of respondent No. 5 in Case No. 199/1985-86 under section 12(U) of the consolidation act, allegedly based on non-existent records per the RTI reply dated 04.12.2023, should be stayed (framed in the relief clause; not adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn).¶22
2.
Whether the respondent No. 3 Consolidation Officer should be restrained from permitting sale, transfer or alienation of the scheduled lands, and respondent No. 5 restrained from creating third-party interests, during pendency of the writ petition (framed in the relief clauses; not adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn).¶23

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Consolidation Act12(U)¶22

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Alleged consolidation entry made in favour of respondent No. 5 in Case No. 199/1985-86 under section 12(U) of the consolidation act, whose stay was the principal relief sought because it purportedly rests on non-existent records.¶22
Prior proceeding
Underlying consolidation proceeding, Case No. 199/1985-86, in which the challenged entry under section 12(U) of the consolidation act was made.¶22
Prior proceeding
RTI reply dated 04.12.2023 relied upon by the petitioner to contend that the consolidation entry is based on non-existent records.¶22

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi Son of Late Ramadhar Ojha¶4
Mr. Uday Prasad Singh
respondent
The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar¶7
Mr. Government Pleader (22), Mr. K.K. Singh
respondent
The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna¶8
respondent
The Consolidation Officer, Block Bihiya Circle, District- Bhojpur at Ara¶9
respondent
The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Circle- Bihiya District- Bhojpur at Ara¶10
respondent
Awanikant Pandey, Son of Hardeo Pandey¶11

Coram

AI extract

Rajiv Royauthor¶16

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Patna HC
Decided on: 13 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 16 Apr 2026
Case no.: CWJC/5796/2026
CNR: BRHC010311392026
Bench: Rajiv Roy
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: CWJC

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Rajiv Roy

Simariya Ghat Dukandar Welfare Society Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.
9 Jul 2026
Garib Nath Ray Vs The State of Bihar
9 Jul 2026
M/S Ganpati Enterprises Vs The State of Bihar
9 Jul 2026
Awadhesh Mandal Vs The State of Bihar
13 Jul 2026
Arbind Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar
13 Jul 2026
Ramjee Pandey Vs The State of Bihar
13 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi v. The State of Bihar, CWJC/5796/2026 (PAT), decided on 13 July 2026.

The Patna High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Consolidation Act12(U)

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Alleged consolidation entry made in favour of respondent No. 5 in Case No. 199/1985-86 under section 12(U) of the consolidation act, whose stay was the principal relief sought because it purportedly rests on non-existent records.
Underlying consolidation proceeding, Case No. 199/1985-86, in which the challenged entry under section 12(U) of the consolidation act was made.
RTI reply dated 04.12.2023 relied upon by the petitioner to contend that the consolidation entry is based on non-existent records.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Rajiv Roy

Parties & counsel