IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9862 of 2025 ====================================================== Shaukat Ali Son of Sheikh Rahamatullah, Resident of Village- Katalpur, P.O. Rajapatti, P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretray, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj. 4. The Additional Collector, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj, 6. The Circle Officer, Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate : Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel (26) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 6 23-06-2026 Heard Mr. S.B.K Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Ambastha for the, learned State counsel. 2. The present petition has been preferred: (I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the letter dated 01.08.2024 issued under the signature of the Respondent no.6 and contained in his memo no.1034 dated 01.08.2024, whereby and where under the Respondent no.6 has submitted his report to the Patna High Court CWJC No.9862 of 2025(6) dt.23-06-2026 2/6 Respondent no.3 and had informed that he has no jurisdiction under the law for conversion of Gairmajarua Land to a Raiyati Land as submitted by the petitioner on the basis of the resolution of the State Government dated 11.11.2014 published in Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 11.11.2014. (II) For a declaration that since the land of Khata No.65, Plot No.505 measuring an area of 8 Acre 60 decimals situated in Mauza- Hamidpur, Thana No.305 is the land purchased by the petitioner from Mahendra Prasad and on the basis of purchase the mutation was also allowed in the name of petitioner vide Mutation Case No.598 of 1982-83 and since the petitioner has been paying rent to the State of Bihar, the impugned order passed by the Respondent no.6 is totally arbitrary while refusing the conversion of a part of the aforesaid land without its declaration as a Raiyati land. (III) For issuance any other appropriate writ/writs ,order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The details of the land stand recorded in paragraph 4 of the writ petition and read as under: Patna High Court CWJC No.9862 of 2025(6) dt.23-06-2026 3/6 “khata no. 65, plot no. 505, mauza – Hamidpur, Circle–Baikunthpur, district - Gopalganj.” 4. One Madho Prasad Singh was recorded as Gairmazarua Malik in the Khatiyan and after the disposal of Money Suit No. 26/51 of 1936, it came into the possession of Rai Bahadur Brij Bihari Prasad, vide Execution Case No. 1757 of 1937. 5. Through the family tree, finally it came in the hand of one Mahendra Prasad and the petitioner claims to have purchased the land from him. This followed mutation of the land way back in the year 1982 (18.11.1982). 6. The contention of the writ petitioner is that for last 44 years, the family is enjoying the fruits of the said land, and in between, Kartarpur Sugar Industry was also established on a part of the said land and on an application submitted, second mutation also took place in favor of the Sugar Mill in the year 1987-88. 7. The contention is that with the change in the life and business style, when an important Government of India undertaking, the Bharat Petroleum Company Limited, decided to accept the offer of the petitioner to open the retail gasline Patna High Court CWJC No.9862 of 2025(6) dt.23-06-2026 4/6 outlet on the said land and a letter of intent was issued on 12.01.2024, the petitioner wanted a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the competent authority, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj for conversion of land so that it can be used for the commercial purposes. 8. The case of the writ petitioner is that instead of moving in a positive manner, the revenue authorities started putting spoke in the wheels and in the process, the Circle Officer, Baikunthpur vide letter no. 1034 dated 01.08.2024 addressed to the Collector, Gopalganj reported that the conversion is not possible as it is a land which has been recorded as khatiyani gair mazarua parti kadim (Annexure P/7). 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire facts clearly show that from 1937 till 2024, there was no objection on the part of the respondents and even the petitioner is having possession of the land since 1982. In between, twice the revenue authorities accepted the mutation application and now, when he made an application for conversion was made after the ‘Letter of Intent’ issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (henceforth for short ‘the BPCL’), the present recommendation. 10. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the State Patna High Court CWJC No.9862 of 2025(6) dt.23-06-2026 5/6 respondent nos. 3 to 6 and they have repeated the facts which already stands incorporated in the earlier paragraphs. However, on query on the development that took place after the Circle Officer, Baikunthpur made recommendation to the Collector, Gopalganj vide letter no. 1034 dated 01.08.2024, there is no further submission inasmuch as the counter affidavit is completely silent on the steps that the respondent Collector took after the Circle Officer sent the letter. This clearly shows that the statement of facts is/are not prepared at the level of the office of the Collector, rather the Circle Officer prepares it and get it stamped from the office of the Collector. This is the reason no further development finds recorded in the counter affidavit. 11. This Court is of the view that when for decades, the petitioner is enjoying the fruits and there has not been any objection, and in between, two mutations also took place. Now when a Letter of Intent has been issued by ‘the BPCL’ the respondents should take a positive decision and if necessary, can also charge the conversion fee. The Court stops at that in view of the fact that the matter is pending before the Collector, Gopalganj. The Court can only observe that it is high time that all the stakeholders are noticed and the Collector, Gopalganj takes the matter to its logical conclusion. Patna High Court CWJC No.9862 of 2025(6) dt.23-06-2026 6/6 12. While taking decision, the Collector, Gopalganj must take into account, the development that has taken place in between inasmuch as ‘the BPCL’ has chosen the site for its gas outlet which ultimately is going to benefit the public at large. 13. The decision is to be taken within a period of three months from the date, the petitioner prefers his representation along with the copy of the order. 14. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation. sanny/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U