IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.347 of 2026 ====================================================== Ashok Mahato @ Ashok Kushwaha S/o Shivmangal Mahto R/o Village - Kalwari Majhariya, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna Bihar 3. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Bihar 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, West Champaran , Bettiah Bihar 5. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari Bihar 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raxaul, Motihari, East Champaran Bihar 7. The S.H.O Aadapur, Motihari, East Champaran Bihar 8. Binod Patel S/o Sadhu Sharan Patel @ Ramchandra Prasad District - East Champaran 9. Sanjay Patel S/o Garahan Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 10. Rajeev Patel S/o Garhan Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 11. Prama Patel S/o Late Bhola Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 12. Sharma Patel S/o Late Bhola Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 13. Ajay Patel S/o Prama Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 14. Sunil Patel S/o Prama Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 15. Guddu Patel S/o Sharma Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 16. Papul Patel S/o Sharma Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 17. Vivek Patel S/o Sharma Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 18. Vivek Patel S/o Sonalal Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 19. Munna Patel S/o Asheshar Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 20. Arun Patel S/o Kishori Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari Patna High Court CR. WJC No.347 of 2026(2) dt.16-07-2026 2/5 21. Anil Patel S/o Kishori Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 22. Pramod Patel S/o Kishori Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 23. Gubbar Patel S/o Kishori Patel R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari 24. Garhan Patel @ Rambalak Patel S/o Late Phanishdeo Raut R/o Village - Kalwari Majhari, P.S - Aadapur, District - East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar,, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.G.P. 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 16-07-2026 The present petition has been filed seeking the direction to respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 5 for lodging FIR against respondent nos. 8 to 24 with allegation that the respondents have forcibly captured the land bearing Khata No. 88, Khesra No. 573, Area 07 katha in village Kulwar Mujhariay, P.S. Aadapur, Motihari and the same is recorded in the name of the wife of the petitioner, Sugandhi Devi. 02. However, on specific query, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land is still in possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has not been dispossessed. However, the respondent nos. 8-24 have been threatening the petitioner that they would dispossess him. They have also been making extortion demand. 03. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.347 of 2026(2) dt.16-07-2026 3/5 State/respondents submits that the whole issue pertains to a Gair Majarua public land bearing Khata No. 04, Khesra No. 356 which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner. This Gair Majarua land is being cultivated by respondent no. 16. The petitioner has been claiming his rights over the said land. Therefore, it is a property dispute. The matter was investigated and during investigation, it was found that the petitioner had not given any application to the SHO of Aadapur. However, on inquiry being made, the fact about claim of the petitioner and private respondents on the Gair Majarua land was found to be the bone of contention. Nothing came in the inquiry about any assault or maar peet and the petitioner himself disclosed that he was not present on the alleged date of occurrence on the spot and his statement was recorded and kept in a pen drive. It has also been submitted that a non-FIR No. 63 of 2025 has been instituted in between the parties under Section 126 of the BNSS. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has sent the application to the SHO and the SDPO through registered post and has annexed the receipt with the petition. 04. Be that as it may, the dispute between the parties appears to be a land dispute and the jurisdiction of writ court cannot be invoked in such case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patna High Court CR. WJC No.347 of 2026(2) dt.16-07-2026 4/5 the case of Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329, held in paragraph nos. 14 an 15 as under: “14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61] and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230] .) 15. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court.” (Emphasis supplied) 05. Therefore, finding the issue involved in the present petition to be a land dispute between the private parties, Patna High Court CR. WJC No.347 of 2026(2) dt.16-07-2026 5/5 I am not inclined to intervene in the matter, at the instance of the petitioner and am of the opinion that the present writ petition is completely misconceived. 06. Hence, finding that the writ jurisdiction could not be allowed to the petitioner for deciding property dispute, for which remedy lies under the civil law, the present writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable. Anuradha/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J) U T