Disposed¶35

Kamlesh Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Jul 2026CWJC/8070/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jamabandi creation; mutation; possession over disputed land; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ jurisdiction misconceived reliefs; writ court cannot decide disputed question of facts; wrong forum; Section 4 Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act 2009; Circle Officer Goh Aurangabad; DCLR; Civil Court competent jurisdiction; disposed with liberty to approach appropriate authority; Patna High Court 2026; Kamlesh Prasad v. State of Bihar; private respondent Ramodhar Singh.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under appropriate proceeding for the reliefs claimed in the writ application; interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. ¶35

Kamlesh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the reliefs sought by the petitioner, namely direction for creation of Jamabandi (mutation) over the disputed land and, in the alternative, delivery of possession, can be granted by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The reliefs sought by the petitioner are misconceived and cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

This Court cannot entertain and decide issues relating to disputed questions of facts; the petitioner, under misconceived notion, has availed the wrong forum under the writ jurisdiction.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWJC No.8070 of 2026, Kamlesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and others, Patna High Court, decided 01-07-2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rana Vikram Singh (oral judgment). The petitioner sought a writ direction to the Circle Officer, Goh, Aurangabad for creation of Jamabandi in his name over land described as Area 8 decimal, Khata No. 38, Plot No. 1115, and alternatively prayed for possession thereof, without ever approaching the Circle Officer for mutation, without seeking recovery of possession in terms of Section 4 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 before the Circle Officer/D.C.L.R., and without approaching a competent Civil Court for adjudication of title. Held: such reliefs are misconceived and incapable of being granted under Article 226 writ jurisdiction; the writ court cannot entertain disputed questions of fact; the petitioner availed the wrong forum. Application disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate authority under appropriate proceedings; interlocutory applications likewise disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8070 of 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Kamlesh Prasad, Son of Shyam Narayan Bind, resident of village- Jhikhateya, P.O.- Rukunde, P.S.- Bimdeya, Anchal Goh, Anumandal, Daudnagar, DistrictAurangabad.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Commissioner, Magadh Parmandal, Gaya Ji, Bihar.

¶9

¶10

¶11

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Bihar).

¶12

The Additional Collector, Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶13

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶14

¶15

¶16

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, (SDM), Aurangabad (Bihar).

¶17

The Circle Officer, Goh, Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶18

The Ramodhar Singh, Son of Raghu Raj Singh, resident of village- Rukunde P.S.- Bimdeya, Anchal Goh, Anumandal, Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad (Bihar).

¶19

... ... Respondent/s

¶20

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

¶21

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kedar Yadav, Adv. For the State : Mr. Harun Quareshi, AC to SC-1 ======================================================

¶22

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Date : 01-07-2026

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶25

the parties.

¶26

The petitioner has approached this Court with

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.8070 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026 2/3

¶28

misconceived reliefs, which cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

The petitioner has raised the question of creation of Jamabandi in his name through the direction issued by the writ Court to the Circle Officer, Goh, Aurangabad without having approached the Circle Officer previously on any occasion to get the land mutated in his name for creation of Jamabandi . The petitioner has also, in alternative, prayed for giving him possession over the land in question, the details of which are as follows:

¶30

“Area 8 decimal, Khata No. 38, Plot No. 1115, North Road (Chawar), South-Sri Ram Bind, East-Sona Devi, West-Sakaldeep Sharma and others”.

¶31

It appears that without availing the proper remedy, either before the Circle Officer/D.C.L.R., for recovery of possession in terms of Section 4 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 or else without having approached the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for getting the title decided, the petitioner has approached this Court directly with the prayer to decide the possession as well as creation of Jamabandi in his favour.

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.8070 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026 3/3

¶33

At this stage, the learned counsel for the State very fairly submits that the writ application being wholly misconceived, is fit to be dismissed in limine .

¶34

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having gone through the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, under misconceived notion, has availed the wrong forum under the writ jurisdiction as this Court cannot entertain and decide the issue relating to disputed question of facts.

¶35

In this backdrop, this application is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under appropriate proceeding for getting the reliefs, which he sought to claim in the present writ application.

¶36

The writ application stands disposed off.

¶37

Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands

¶38

disposed off accordingly.

¶39

(Rana Vikram Singh, J)

¶40

Praveen-II/-

¶41

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	02.07.2026
Transmission Date	N/A

Kamlesh Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramnath Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Shobhit Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Shiv Narayan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Uttam Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Shivchand Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Devendra Kumar @ Devendra Kumar Shah, Vs The State of Bihar