IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5707 of 2021 ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar Jha Son of Late Ram Narayan Jha Resident of Balmi- Mehath, P.S. Bhairav Asthan, District-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Madhubani. 3. The Sub-Divisional officer, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani. 4. The Circle Officer, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani. 5. The Circle Inspector, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani. 6. The Revenue Karamchari, namely Rambabu Jha, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani. 7. The Anchal Amin, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani. 8. Samtola Devi Wife of Arun Kamat. Daughter-in-Law and Mother-In-Law In relation and Resident of Village-Mehath, P.S. Bhairav Asthan, District Madhubani. 9. Smt. Sabri Devi Wife of Bhunna Kamat. Daughter-In-Law and Mother-In- Law in relation Resident of Village-Mehath, P.S. Bhairav Asthan, District Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anwar Karim, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.D. Sanjay, AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 18-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In the instant Writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ and/or Patna High Court CWJC No.5707 of 2021(3) dt.18-08-2026 2/6 order for quashing entire proceeding initiated and taken up by the Circle Officer, Jhanjharpur on the application filed by the private respondents no. 8 and 9 under Bihar Privileged Persons Homeastate Tenancy Act whereby by the order dated 05.11.2019, the Circle Officer, Jhanjharpur has allowed the application filed by the private respondents and has granted Parcha to Smt. Samtola Devi and Smt. Sabri Devi (Respondents No. 8 and 9 respectively) against the petitioner’s Raiyati Land bearing Khata No. 132, Khesra No. 1799 (old)/ 539 (New), Area 0- 32 Decimals and after quashing the Parcha, the respondents be directed to hand over the vacant possession of the land in question to the petitioner and or pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper for ends of substantial justice.” 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the Circle Officer, Jhanjharpur in a proceeding initiated under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homeastate Tenancy Act on the application filed by the private Patna High Court CWJC No.5707 of 2021(3) dt.18-08-2026 3/6 respondents no. 8 and 9, whereby Basgit Parcha was granted to them. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceeding was decided ex-parte without any notice ever being served upon the petitioner, and that no local enquiry/inspection as required under Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act was carried out, nor was any notice of such inspection was served to the petitioner, and as such the impugned proceeding and the Parcha are vitiated and violative of the principles of natural justice. 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Circle Officer and allied functionaries of Jhanjharpur Circle are in the habit of issuing such ex-parte Parchas in connivance with the Circle Inspector, Revenue Karamchari and Anchal Amin. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner’s grandfather, Late Bhailal Jha, under a registered sale deed dated 17.06.1946, the Khatiyan entry stands in the name of the petitioner’s ancestor Late Vishwanath Jha, and rent receipts were granted in the petitioner’s favour up to the year 2015 and that the private respondents were permitted, out of goodwill, to Patna High Court CWJC No.5707 of 2021(3) dt.18-08-2026 4/6 reside in the outer portion of the petitioner’s residential house barely five years ago as agricultural labourers, and that they have now falsely and dishonestly claimed possession for about 150 years and, in connivance with the local revenue functionaries, procured the impugned ex-parte Parcha. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the state submits that the Respondent No. 8 had moved an application dated 15.06.2018 before the Circle Officer, Jhanjharpur, claiming residence over the land in question for about 150 years along with her family, upon which Basgit Parcha Case No. 05/2019-20 was registered; reports were called for from the Karamchari-cum-Circle Inspector and the Anchal Amin, which were duly submitted on 25.10.2019 and 28.10.2019 respectively, confirming residential occupation of Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 over the land. 8. It is further submitted that the notice bearing Letter No. 23 dated 30.10.2019 was duly issued and served upon the petitioner through the peon of the Circle Officer’s office, and although the petitioner’s wife and mother declined to accept the same after being apprised of its contents, service stood validly effected in law. 9. The Learned Counsel for the State further Patna High Court CWJC No.5707 of 2021(3) dt.18-08-2026 5/6 submits that local inspection was in fact carried out, upon which the Circle Officer found Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in residential occupation with no other house available to them, and accordingly the Basgit Parcha was granted to them. 10. Learned counsel drew attention to the petitioner’s own application dated 18.12.2019 filed before the D.C.L.R., Jhanjharpur, wherein the petitioner himself acknowledged receipt of the notice dated 30.10.2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner has himself admitted that Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were labourers engaged by the petitioner’s family, who were permitted long ago to raise residential structures on the land in question, and that such possession, being permissive in nature and continuing over a long duration, does not entitle the petitioner to the reliefs claimed. 11. At the outset, learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, submitting that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Collector in an appropriate proceeding, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.5707 of 2021(3) dt.18-08-2026 6/6 Circle Officer. 12. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation, the present Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. manish/- (Alok Kumar, J) U