IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14037 of 2022 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Thakur S/o Late Sachchidanand Thakur R/o Dharamganj, Ward No. 28, P.S. and Dist.- Kishanganj. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through, The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, State of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, State of Bihar, Patna. Email id- emutationbihar@gmail.com. 3. The District Magistrate, Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj. Email dm- kishanganj.bih@nic.in 4. The Addl. District Magistrate, District- Kishanganj. 5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), At Kishanganj, Dist. Kishanganj. Email Id- dclrkishanganj@gmail.com 6. The Circle Officer (C.O.) Block Kishanganj, At Kishanganj, Dist.- Kishanganj. Email Id- co.kishanganj-bih@gov.in 7. Smt. Hena Jha W/o Upendra Jha R/o Dharamganj, Ward No. 28, P.S. and District- Kishanganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam ( AAG 12 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-08-2025 In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief (s) :- “1. For issuing show cause to the Respondent No. 6 as why the office concerned had/has been issuing and serving to the Petitioner the repeated notice/s with respect to the land of the Petitioner bearing Mauza Sundarwan, Thana No. 110, Patna High Court CWJC No.14037 of 2022 dt.04-08-2025 2/7 Khata No. 66, Khesra No. 611 for the area 6 kaththa, 11 dhur and 10 dhurki" with different case numbers bearing 01/2021 dated 07/08/2021 & 01/2022 dated 20/07/2022 (Annexure-1, Series) against the Sikmii/ Niwas Land of the Petitioner in which substantially involved question of Right, Title and Interest if any against the private respondent No. ii. For direction to The Respondent No. 6 to observe the principle of "Res Judicata" before registering such cases, Same Subject Matter, the Sikmii /Niwas Land situated in Mauza Mauza Sundarwan, Thana No. 110, Khata No. 66, Khesra No. 611 for the area 6 kaththa, 11 dhur and 10 dhurki (later with including whole lands of the other family members of the petitioner) and between Same set of contesting parties) followed by issuing / serving notices and harassing the Petitioner. iii. For any other relief in favour of the petitioner as the Honorable Court may deem fit and Patna High Court CWJC No.14037 of 2022 dt.04-08-2025 3/7 proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that is dispute with regard to the land appertaining to Khata No. 66, Khesra No. 611, Thana No. 110 for the area 6 Kaththa, 11 dhur and 10 dhurki situated in Mauza Sundarwan. It is submitted that with regard to the land in question, Smt. Hena Jha (respondent no. 7) filed Land Dispute at Police Station level Case No. 01 of 2021 before the Circle Officer, Kishanganj (respondent no. 6) in which notice dated 02.08.2021 was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner appeared and filed his reply as contained in Annexure-2. The Circle Officer passed the order dated 07.08.2021 and observed that issue of title is involved with respect to the land in question and recommended to the parties to approach the court of competent civil jurisdiction. It is submitted that on the complaint of respondent no. 7, the Circe Officer (respondent no. 6) issued notice dated 20.07.2022 to the petitioner and his family members in Land Dispute at Police Station Level Case No. 01 of 2022. 2(i). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner represented his grievance before the District Magistrate, Kishanganj (respondent no. 3) by way of representation as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition Patna High Court CWJC No.14037 of 2022 dt.04-08-2025 4/7 that the concerned Circle Officer has given two different direction in respect of the same land in question, however the said representation is still pending and no order has been passed up-till-now. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is dispute with respect to the title over the land in question. However, in case petitioner files a fresh representation raising the grievances which has been raised in the present writ petition, the same shall be looked into. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 submits that the land in question belongs to respondent no. 7 and she is the bona fide purchaser and there is no civil dispute with respect to the land in question. 5. In the light of submission made on behalf of the parties, it is clear that there is dispute between the parties over the land in question. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that regular suit is appropriate remedy for settlement of dispute relating to property rights between private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where there is violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding Patna High Court CWJC No.14037 of 2022 dt.04-08-2025 5/7 disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extra-ordinary should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in AIR 1957 SC 529 and in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors, reported in (2015) SCC 423 are quite relevant. 7. In the case of Sohan Lal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs. These are questions of fact and law which are in dispute requiring determination before the respective claims of the parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property and was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution such a declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered.” Patna High Court CWJC No.14037 of 2022 dt.04-08-2025 6/7 8. In the case of Radhey Shyam (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 64 and 65 has observed as under : “64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in case of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed question of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.” 9. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the material available on the record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sohan Lal (supra) and Radhey Shyam (supra), the disputed aspect with respect to the title over the land cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and the appropriate remedy, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is before the Civil Court. Patna High Court CWJC No.14037 of 2022 dt.04-08-2025 7/7 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the appropriate forum. 11. So far as the grievance of the petitioner as raised before the District Magistrate, Kishanganj (respondent no. 3) by way of representation (Annexue-3) which has not been decided as yet, petitioner is granted liberty to represent his grievance, which has been raised in the present writ petition, afresh before the District Magistrate, Kishanganj (respondent no. 3) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If such representation is filed within the stipulated period, the competent authority will pass appropriate order after giving due opportunities of hearing to the parties concerned, without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court, expeditiously within a reasonable period of time. mcverma/- (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 07.08.2025 Transmission Date