IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2043 of 2026 ====================================================== Shrikant Kumar s/o Sharifan Yadav, Reesident of Village- Singhara, Ward No. 1,P.S- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna, PIN Code- 801102. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Patna Bihar. 2. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Additional Collector, Patna. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Paliganj, Patna. 5. The Circle Officer, Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna. 6. Kumar Devendra Narayan, s/o Awadh Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Singhara, P.S- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna, PIN Code-801102. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms.Dimpal Kumari, AC to GP 11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:- “a. For the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2025, passed by the Learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Paliganj, Patna, in Land Dispute Case No.35/2025- 26 whereby and whereunder the DCLR, Paliganj has erroneously allowed the claim of the Applicant/Respondent 2nd Set, declaring his rights over the subject land and directing the Circle Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 2/9 Officer, Dulhin Bazar, Patna, to effectuate measurement and demarcation of the land in question bearing Khata No.110, Khesra No.951 (Area 25 decimals), Khata No.110, Khesra No.952 (Area 44 decimals), Khata No.110, Khesra No.953 (Area 2 decimals) and Khata No.112, Khesra No.950 (Area 72 decimals) upon realization of the requisite fee. b. For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction, staying the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 24.12.2025, passed by the Respondent No.4 (Learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Paliganj, Patna) in Land Dispute Case No.35/2025- 26, during the pendency of the present writ application. c. For commanding the respondents to maintain status quo over the land in question till final disposal of the writ petition. d. For any other writ/writs for which petitioner may deem entiled to.” 3. The petitioner is claiming title over a piece of land, over which he allegedly came into possession on the basis of an Exchange Deed dated 03.03.1973, as stated in paragraphs 4 and 9 of the writ petition respectively. However, the petitioner does not dispute that Title Suit No. 483 of 1989, relating to partition between the petitioner and the original landholder, was instituted, nor does he deny that Jamabandi No. 608 was created in the name of the ancestor of private respondent no. 6. The petitioner further contends that in the said title partition suit, the issue relating to the exchange of land between the parties in the year 1973 was not adjudicated. Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 3/9 4. In view of the above, the petitioner has questioned the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) in passing the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 as the same has been passed without jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be interfered with. 5. The petitioner, in support of his claim, has relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed in CWJC No. 17154 of 2022 (Akhilesh Singh v. The State of Bihar), as well as, the judgment dated 03.04.2023 passed in CWJC No. 6259 of 2020 (Ram Bachan Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and contended that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) has no jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 4(1)(h) of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2009”), which confers jurisdiction upon the competent authority only in matters relating to “boundary” disputes. It is further contended that Rule 2(d) of the Act, 2009 defines the term “land” and that the Act does not contemplate adjudication of disputes involving title between two private individuals. 6. For proper appreciation of the controversy involved, it would be apposite to reproduce the provisions Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 4/9 contained in Section 4 of the Act, 2009, which reads as follows: “ 4. Jurisdiction and authority to resolve disputes.-(1) 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:- (a) Unauthorised and unlawful dispossession of any settlee or allottee from any land or part thereof, settled with or allotted to him under any Act contained in Schedule-1 to this Act by issuance of any settlement 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 appertaining to raiyati land. (e) Partition of land holding; (f) Correction of entry made in the record of rights including map/survey map. (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 Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 5/9 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) hereinabove, if 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.” 6. Rule 2(d) of the Act, 2009 reads as follows : - 2(d)-“Land” connotes Government land, raiyati land, with with structure, if any.” 7. While considering the similar question raised before this Court, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Basudev Saw & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., vide judgment dated 29.02.2023 passed in CWJC No.9536 of 2022 had observed inter alia as follows : - “From the materials on record, what is not in dispute is that the application filed by the petitioners as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas was under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 6/9 2009. …………………………………………... Admittedly, the case of the respondent no.5 not being that the land in question was a Government land, which was settled in his favour under any of the Acts, contained in Schedule-1 to the Act, there can be no dispute with respect to the fact that the respondent no.5 is neither an allottee nor a settlee as defined under the Act. The next question which would arise is as to whether the authority under the Act would have jurisdiction to decide the disputes as mentioned in sections 4(1)(e) to 4(1)(j) with respect to persons who are not settlee/allottee as in the case of this petitioner. It is true that sections 4(1)(a), (b) and (c) specifically mentions the term ‘settlee/allottee’ while the same is not used in sections 4(1)(e) to 4(1)(j). At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the preamble of the Act for purpose of ascertaining the intent for which the legislature enacted the Act. The preamble of the Act is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “Preamble:- Whereas, in the State of Bihar, disputes relating to record of rights, boundaries, entries in revenue records, unlawful occupation of raiyati land and forcible dispossession of allottees and settlees of public land, generate problems and cause unnecessary harassment tobonafide allotees/settlees, raiyats or occupants; WHEREAS, such disputes with respect to raiyati land or public land allotted in favour of different classes of allottees are unnecessarily occupying major space of Civil Courts and Hon’ble High Court and which should otherwise have been resolved by the Revenue Authorities, who may be better equipped to deal with such disputes having regard to their continued presence in the field offices and their expertise in Revenue Administration, WHEREAS, in larger public interest it is deemed necessary to provide for effective and speedy mechanism to resolve such disputes which give rise to major turbulence if not addressed immediately and effectively; Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 7/9 AND, WHEREAS, it has been found in analysis of data relating to nature of disputes that they mostly appertain to matters connected with the record of rights, partition of jamabandi, forcible dispossession of allottees / raiyats, boundary disputes etc. and in this context, the administration of the following Acts is involved: (1) The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, (2) The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, (3) The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, (4) The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, (5) The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (6) The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, AND, Whereas, different forums and procedures have been provided for the resolution of disputes under the above referred Acts and it is considered expedient to provide a uniform and common forum, procedure and mechanism which would achieve the objective of effective, efficacious and speedy resolution of disputes.” From reading of the preamble and the Act as a whole, there remains no doubt that the purpose of the legislature in enacting the Act was effective and speedy mechanism to resolve disputes with respect to matters connected with record of rights, partition of jamabandi, forcible dispossession of allottees/raiyats, boundary disputes etc. and in this context, the Acts namely The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 were involved. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, what appears from the reading of the Act as a whole along with its preamble as quoted herein above and specifically section 3 of the Act, the purpose of the Act is on resolution of any dispute arising out of or under any of the six Acts mentioned in Schedule-1. Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 8/9 So far as the instant case is concerned, the case of the respondent no.5, on whose application the proceedings under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 commenced in the Court of the learned D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas, was neither an allottee nor a settlee nor was his case that the land in question which is the subject matter of the dispute came in his possession under any of the six Acts mentioned in Schedule-1 to the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. Thus, in view of the facts stated herein above, the application filed by the respondent no.5 before the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 was not maintainable and as a result the order dated 20.5.2022 passed in Case no.17/2021-22 by the D.C.L.R., Dehri, Rohtas being without jurisdiction, is not sustainable and is hereby quashed.” 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that Title Suit No. 483 of 1989 pertained to partition. It was further contended that respondent no. 6 is a descendant of one of the original landholders, in whose name Jamabandi No. 608 was opened pursuant to the decree passed in Title Suit No. 483 of 1989. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the DCLR. 9.Heard the parties. 10. In view of the findings recorded in the judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed in CWJC No.9536 of 2022 (Basudev Saw & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), I find that, in the Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 9/9 present case, the petitioner is claiming his right over the land in question on the basis of an Exchange Deed of the year 1973. Subsequent thereto, the original landholder filed Title Partition Suit No. 483 of 1989 and the DCLR, by the impugned order dated 24.12.2025, directed the Circle Officer concerned to demarcate the land in question in favour of the original landholder. 11. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was neither made a party to the said partition suit nor did he take steps to get himself impleaded, despite claiming possession and interest in the land and the Jamabandi No. 608 remained in the name of the original landholder. 12. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find that the DCLR has exceeded or acted beyond his jurisdiction in passing the order for demarcation of the land between the parties. 13. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present writ petition, which stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. chn/- (Purnendu Singh, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.02.2026 Transmission Date NA.