IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13174 of 2022 ====================================================== Sadhusharan Prasad Son of Late Teka Mahto, Resident of Village Pilakhi Tola, Mudaffarpur, P.S.-Rajgir, P.O.-Rajgir, District-Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar the District Magistrate, Nalanda. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Rajgir, Nalanda. 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reform (DCLR0, Rajgir, Nalanda. 4. The District Sub-Registrar, Rajgir, Nalanda. 5. The Superintendent of Police (SP), Nalanda. 6. The Circle Officer (CO), Rajgir, Nalanda. 7. Binod Kumar, son of Chandrika Singh, Resident of Village-Bindidih, P.S.- Silaw, P.O.-Bindidih, District-Nalanda. 8. Shailesh Kumar, son of Indradev Singh, Resident of Village-Pilkhi, P.S. and P.O.-Rajgir, Distirct-Nalanda. 9. Kanhaiya Kumar, Son of Rajendra Saw, Resident of Village-Badahari, P.S. and P.O.-Chabilapur, Distirct-Nalanda. 10. Suraj Kumar, son of Amar Singh, Resident of Village-Pilkhi, P.S. and P.O.- Rajgir, Distirct-Nalanda. 11. Dhananjay Kumar, son of Dinesh Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Patel Nagar, P.s.-Rajgir, District-Nalanda. 12. Uddhav Upadhyay, Son of Joginder Upadhyaya, Resident of Village- Upadhyaya Tola, P.S. and P.O.-Rajgir, Distirct-Nalanda. 13. Mukesh Kumar, son of Vinod Ram, Resident of Bus Stand Rajgir, P.S. and P.O.-Rajgir, Distirct-Nalanda. 14. Shivam Desh Anand, son of Arvind Kumar Sharma, Resident of Village- Seema, P.S. and P.O.-Silao, Distirct-Nalanda. 15. Mithlesh Prasad, son of Late Munshi Mahto, resident of Village-Yogipur, Hilsa, Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha (SC-19) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 18-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed Patna High Court CWJC No.13174 of 2022(3) dt.18-08-2026 2/6 for the following relief(s): “ A. For issuance of writ in nature of mandamus to respondent no. (3) and (6) for direction to refrain or abstain from entering name of private respondent no. (7) to (14) in the revenue record under Bihar Mutation Act, 2011 on the basis of forge & fabricated sale deed (Annexure-2) which was forcibly executed by kidnapping & abduction of petitioner widow mother aged about 93 years against her will for which petitioner had lodged Rajgir P.S case No. 518/2021 U/s 363 of the IPC against the accused persons. B. For direction to the respondent no. (4) to stay or kept in abeyance of registration of sale deed (annexure-2) executed in contrary to the advisory issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 659 of 2007 vide judgment dated 11-08-2017, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to protect the interest of destitute and vulnerable widows, in her immovable property, directed to took steps to constitute a committee for giving suggestions on different matters including the issue of protection of immovable property right. C. And for any other reliefs/reliefs Patna High Court CWJC No.13174 of 2022(3) dt.18-08-2026 3/6 for which the petitioner is found to be entitled under the provision of law involved in the present case.” 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the son of Late Chatrdhari Mahto, who died in the year 1975 and the family’s immovable property continued to be recorded in the name of the petitioner’s mother, Jamuni Devi, in the Government revenue register even after the petitioner attained majority. The petitioner’s son, Manish Kumar, was married to Amrita Bharti, daughter of private respondent no. 15, and they had one daughter, but the marriage was subsequently dissolved by a decree of divorce and after the said dissolution, Amrita Bharti and private respondent no. 15 raised a demand for registration of the petitioner’s immovable property in Amrita Bharti’s favour, which was refused; and that thereafter, the petitioner’s son Manish Kumar was found murdered, his dead body having been recovered from an agricultural field near the village. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner’s mother Jamuni Devi, aged about 93 years had an unstable mental condition and was not in the position to take rational decisions and that on 24.11.2021, she left the house and did not return; and that upon search, it was found out that Patna High Court CWJC No.13174 of 2022(3) dt.18-08-2026 4/6 private respondent no. 15 took advantage of the family relation and forcibly kidnapped her against her will. 5. It is alleged that the said accused, after kidnapping the petitioner’s mother, by misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion, and by taking advantage of her mental condition, managed to get five sale deeds executed before the Sub- Registrar, Rajgir, on 01.12.2021, in favour of private respondent nos. 7 to 15, all pertaining to land situated in Mauja Pilkhi, Khata No. 185, Khesra No. 05, District Nalanda, allegedly for a throw-away price as against a stated market value exceeding Rs. 10 crores. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further alleged that on the strength of the aforesaid sale deeds, private respondent nos. 7 to 15 got the land mutated in their favour through the Circle Officer, Rajgir (respondent no. 6), without following due process under the Bihar Mutation Act, 2011, and despite the petitioner’s representations before the Circle Officer, Rajgir and before the SDO and DCLR, Rajgir seeking that the private respondents names not to be entered in the revenue record on the strength of the allegedly forged sale deeds; reliance has also been placed on the advisory of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 659 of 2007, dated 11.08.2017, Patna High Court CWJC No.13174 of 2022(3) dt.18-08-2026 5/6 concerning the protection of destitute and vulnerable widows in respect of their immovable property. 7. Learned counsel for the state submits that both the named accused were granted bail on surrender by the learned C.J.M., Nalanda, on 23.12.2021 and that during investigation, the petitioner, his wife Savita Devi, his daughter Madhuri Kumari, and co-villagers Santosh Prasad and Arun Prasad were examined by the Investigating Officer, who supported the case as contained in the F.I.R.; and that thereafter, while the Investigating Officer was in search of the victim, the petitioner’s mother Jamuni Devi, along with family members of the petitioner’s Samdhi, voluntarily appeared at Rajgir P.S. on 17.01.2022. 8. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim, Jamuni Devi, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., disclosed that she had not been properly cared for by her son and daughter-in- law and had, therefore, went to Hilsa after a quarrel with them, of her own volition, and was residing in the house of her Samdhi, where she was being properly cared for; she further stated that the lands standing in her name had been transferred by her, of her own will, in favour of her granddaughter, Sakchhi Bharti @ Satya. Patna High Court CWJC No.13174 of 2022(3) dt.18-08-2026 6/6 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it seems that the dispute is in between two private parties, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the private dispute of the parties in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. As such, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Bipin/- (Alok Kumar, J) U