IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4111 of 2025 ====================================================== 1. Daulati Devi Wife of Ram Janam Saw @ Ram Prawesh Saw, Resident of Village Muradpur Hujra, Post office- Baidrabad, Police Station- Arwal, District- Arwal, Bihar. 2. Gudiya Kumari Daughter of Ram Janam Saw @ Ram Prawesh Saw, Resident of Village Muradpur Hujra, Post office- Baidrabad, Police Station- Arwal, District- Arwal, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Arwal. 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Arwal. 4. The Circle Inspector, Arwal. 5. The Officer-In-Charge, Police Station- Arwal, District- Arwal. 6. Sanjay Sudhi Son of Late Ishwar Dayal Sudhi, Resident of Village Muradpur Hujra, Post Baidrabad, Police Station- Arwal, Block, Arwal, District- Arwal, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abu Nasar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC 3 For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 4 24-03-2026 Heard Mr. Abu Nasar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Parth Gaurav, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 6 and Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC 3. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for grant of the followed reliefs: i. for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 17.01.2025 by which the Ld. Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector allowed the Case No. 63/2024-25 filed Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026 2/7 under Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 filed by the Respondent No. 6 and directed the Circle Officer, Arwal and Incharge Officer, Arwal Police Station to vacate the house of the petitioners within a period of one month and give the possession to the Respondent No. 6. ii. for issuance of appropriate direction to stay the operation of the order dated 17.01.2025 and direct the respondents herein to not take any coercive step in light of the said order. iii. for any other relief(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate.” 3. The matter relates to a piece of land having following details: “ Khata No.- 40 Plot No.- 437 Mauza- Muradpur Hajra Thana- 80 Police Station & Block Arwal, District- Arwal (Area 2 decimal) 4. Admittedly, it is a raiyati land on which the respondent no. 6 has laid his claim. As would manifest, the respondent no. 6 moved before the Court of learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Arwal under Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (for short, 2009 Act) which led to Miscellaneous Case No. 63/2024-25 (Sanjay Sudhi Vs. Daulati Devi and Ors.). 5. His claim was that as a tenant, the lady entered but Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026 3/7 is now staking claim on it and as such, be removed from the said land. 6. The petitioners were noticed and thereafter vide an order dated 17.01.2025 and after hearing the parties, setting aside the contention/ preliminary objection that it is raiyati land, the Court cannot hear the case (as the land has not been received by the respondent no. 2 through any settlement), an order was passed with a direction to the Revenue Authorities /Police Officials to ensure that the land stands vacated and handed over to the respondent no. 6. 7. Aggrieved the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the aforesaid act of D.C.L.R., Arwal is in teeth of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 (henceforth for short ‘the 2009 Act’) and the orders passed by this Court particularly in the case of Basudev Saw & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 9536 of 2022) disposed of on 29.03.2023 as also in the case of Akhilesh Singh vs. The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 17154 of 2022) disposed of on 01.04.2024. He has taken this Court to paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the order passed in Akhilesh Singh (supra) which reads as under:- “16. This Court will like to incorporate Section 4 of the 2009 Act which Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026 4/7 read as follows: 4. Jurisdiction and authority to resolve disputes- (I) 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:- Unauthorised and unlawful dispossession of any settlee or allottee from any land or part thereof, settled with or allotted to him for under any Ad or Policy of the State or Central Government providing for settlement of government land to the persons of any specified category under any Act contained in Schedule-1 to this Act by issuance of any settlemen document/parcha by a Competent Authority; (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; (c) Threatened dispossession of a legally entitled settlee /allottee: (d) Any of the matters enumerated in (a), (b) and (c) above appertainings raiyati land; (e) Partition of land holding; (f) Correction of entry made in the Record of Rights including map/survey mag Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026 5/7 (g) Declaration of the right of a person; (h) Boundary disputes; (i) Construction of unauthorized structure; and (j) Lis pendens transfer. (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 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. (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). (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) and (3) Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026 6/7 hereinabove, 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 such right. (5) The Competent Authority, 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.” 17. A perusal of the said section would clearly show that it is restricted to the settlee or the allottee of a land where there is unauthorized unlawful dispossession as also relating to restoration of possession of settled/allotted land. 9. The respondent no. 6 has appeared and though the counter affidavit has been filed and the grievance is that the petitioners entered as a tenant and now they are trying to usurp the entire land, candidly admits that in view of ‘the 2009 Act’, it been a raiyati land, the D.C.L.R., Arwal exceeded his jurisdiction. 10. As usual, the State respondents failed to file any affidavit despite the matter being adjourned earlier. 11. Having heard the parties, in the opinion of the Patna High Court CWJC No.4111 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026 7/7 Court, when the parties are in agreement that it is not a settled land rather a raiyati land, naturally ‘the 2009 Act’ is not applicable in the present case. 12. This Court has further taken note of the orders passed by Patna High Court in earlier cases especially, in Akhilesh Singh (supra) case and is of the considered view that D.C.L.R., Arwal certainly exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order in question. 13.Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2024 and the order dated 17.01.2025 stands quashed. 14. The parties including respondent no. 6 are free to take steps for redressal of the grievance by approaching the Competent Civil Court as this Court has taken note of the claim of the respondent no. 6 that despite he being the absolute owner of the land in question and only tenancy right was given to the petitioners who are now illegally claiming title over the land. 15. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Ranjeet/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U