Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33425 (PAT)

Nagendra Kumar Singh and Ors v. The State Of Bihar and Ors

CWJC/2380/2018 · 2026-02-16

Rajiv Roy

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2380 of 2018 ====================================================== 1. Nagendra Kumar Singh 2. Santosh Kumar Singh Both Sons of Late Sant Bilash Singh, Resident of Village-Sondhila, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar. 3. Most. Sushila devi Wife of Late Rajendra Prasad Singh. Resident of Village- Sondhila, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar. 4. Harendra Singh @ Harendra Kumar Singh Son of Late Raj Mangal Singh, Resident of Village-Adrash Nagar Collectriat Road Buxar, P.S. Buxar, District-Buxar. 5. Sumeshwar Singh Son of Late Raj Mangal Singh Resident of Village- Sondhila, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar. 6. Arbind KUmar Singh. 7. Rabindra Kumar Singh, Both Sons of Late Ram Bilash Singh, Resident of Village-Moti Bilash Bhawan, Civil Engineer, Raj Banshi Nagar Road No.1, Patna, P.S.-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna. 8. Saeda Kuwer @ Sarda Devi Wife of Ram Sighashan Singh. 9. Rabi Kumar. 10. Ramesh Kumar Both Sons of Late Ram Sighashan Singh Petitiner No. 8 to 10 Resident of Village-Bazar Samiti, Gayatri Bhawan Musaffirganj, P.S.- Buxar, District-Buxar, ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Member, Administrative, Bihar Land Tribunal Patna, Bihar. 3. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 4. Narmadeshwar Singh 5. Basant Prakash Singh 6. Jagjit Narayan Singh All Sons of Late Raj Bali Singh, Resident of Village- P.O.-Sondhila, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha-Sc19 For respondent nos. 4 to 6 Mr. Binod Shankar Modi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 4 16-02-2026 Heard Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026 2/6 the petitioners, the State as also Mr. Binod Shankar Modi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 04 to 06. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s: (i) for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs/Rule/Order or direction for quashing the order dated 31.1.2017 passed by respondent No.2 in B. L. T. Case No.567 of 2015 as contained in Annexure-7 by which the respondent No.2 has pleased to allow the B.L. T. Case filed by the respondent No.4 to 6 and divert the water flow in Karha from canal after laps of 22 years and to restore the drain to its natural course and also quashed the order dated 25.2.1994 passed by respondent No.3 in Revision Case No. 3177 of 1988 as contained in Annexure-2 to this petition, without taking into consideration that since 1994 all the chakholder/raiyats of Mouza -Snodhia are getting the facilities of irrigation of the said Karha. Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026 3/6 3. The matter relates to a piece of land with following details Chak No. 38 and 39, thana no. 338, circle and district- Buxar. 4. A short order came to be passed on 25.02.1994 by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna (Sant Bilash Singh vs. the Consolidation Officer, Buxar) and read as follows: ,usDlpj&1 funs”kd] pdcanh dk U;k;ky;] fcgkj] iVukA dsl la[;k& 201@77 /kkjk& 25 Jh fo'oukFk flag oYn Jh Hkh[kh flag LoxZoklh lkfdu xzke lksU/khyk] Fkkuk&cDlj] ftyk Hkkstiqj&&&&&&&&&&&&& vihydrkZ] cuke 1- cnzhukjk;.k flag oYn Jh f'koukjk;.k flag] LoxZoklh] lkfdu xzke lksU/khyk] Fkkuk cDlj ftyk Hkkstiqj vkns'k 1&7&77 bl ekeys dks fnukad 29-6-77 ls LFkfxr dj vkt fnukad 1&7&77 dks j[kh x;h FkhA ftldh iwoZ lwpuk nh x;h Fkh tks vfHkys[k ij yxk gqvk gSA vkt nksuksa i{kksa dh mifLFkfr esa lquokbZ dh x;hA vly erHksn pd la[;k 146 ,oa 1102 dks ysdj gSA pd la[;k 146] jdck 2&49 ,dM+ izfroknh cnzh uk0 flag dks ,oa pd 1102 jdck 2&42 ,dM+ vkosnd fo'oukFk flag dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA pd la[;k 146 esa losZ IykWV la[;k 256] 257] ,oa 258] jdck dqy 0&49 ,dM+ vkosndksa dh gSA pqafd pd la[;k&146 izfroknh dks vkoafVr gS] blfy, vkosnd pkgrs gSa fd pd 146] vkosnd dks gh vkoafVr gks tk;] pd la[;k 1102 dks 0&49 ,0 tehu ij tks cnzh uk0 flag oxSjg dk [kfr;kuh gS] vkilh gd ,oa gdh;r dk flfoy lwV yfEcr gSA blfy,] izkFkhZx.k pd la[;k 1102 ysus ls fgpfdpk jgs gSa vkSj os izfroknh dks vkoafVr pd la[;k 146 dk vius uke ls djkdj pd la[;k 1102 izfrokfn;ksa ds uke vkoaVu djkus dh izkFkZuk djrs gSaA lkjh ckrksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij xkSj djrs gq, fuEukafdr fu.kZ; fy;s tkrs gSa %& 1& pd la[;k 146 esa lfEefyr losZ IykWV la[;k 256] 257 ,oa Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026 4/6 258 dqy jdck 49 fM0 tks izkFkhZ dk gS ,oa ftlds ikl 6 fM0 esa dqvka gS] bls pd la[;k 146 ls fudky dj izkFkhZ dks jgus fn;k tkrk gSA 2& izfroknh cnzh uk0 flag dks bl izdkj 49 Mh0 dh deh gksrh gSA mlls pd 1102 esa lfEefyr muds vius IykSV la[;k 1472 jdck 66 fM0 ,oa mlds vkl ikl ds vU; tehuksa ls feykdj 49 fM0 mUgsa nsdj iqjk dj fn;k tk;A 3& izkFkhZ ds pd u0 1102 ls 1&64 ,dM+ tehu pd ua0 32 ls pd izkFkhZ bUnzthr yky dks ns fn;k tk;A bUnzthr yky dks pd ua0 1102 ls lVs mRrj pd la[;k 1067 iwoZ ls bUgsa vkoafVr gSA blfy, mUgsas blesa lqfo/kk gksxhA 4& pd la[;k 1102 esa vc 29 fM0 tehu vihydrkZ ds uke ij cp tkrk gS ftls pd la[;k 150 tks ,d dgjk ;kstuk gS] ds lekuqikfr va'k dks foyksfir dj leatu fd;k tk; bl laca/k esa mejko flag ds fjfHktu ekeyk la[;k 361@77 esa ,slk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA vr,o bl vkns'k ls mldk Hkh fuLrkj le>k tk;A 5& izkFkhZ fo'oukFk flag dks tks pd 1102 jdck 2&42 ,dM+ vkoafVr Fkk mlds cnys 0&49 ,dM+ mUgsa vius rhu losZ IykV mudks fn;k x;kA pd la[;k 1102 ds mij pd la[;k 32 ds pd/kkjh ds okil Hkstus ds QyLo:i pd la[;k 32 jdck 1&64 ,dM+ tehu [kkyh gks tkrh gS tks vc izkFkhZ ds vkoafVr fd;k tkrk gSA tc mUgsa dqy yxHkx 29 fM0 dh deh jgrh gS tks djgk ds {ks=Qy ls fudkyk x;k gS] vkSj izkFkhZ dks fn;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ dk pd la[;k 37 tks bl vkns'k }kjk mUgsa vkoafVr pd la[;k 32 nksuksa dks pd la[;k 33 ds mRrjh Hkkx ls dqN tehu ysdj tksM+ fn;k tk;A ,oa pd la[;k 33 dks lekuqikfrd :i ls nf[ku f?kldk fn;k tk;A g0 dhfrZ ukjk;.k] funs'kd] pdcanhA esjs }kjk ys[kkfir ,oa 'kqf)r g0 dhfrZ ukjk;.k funs'kd esjs }kjk Vafdr fd;k x;k g0 vLi"V 30&7&77] esjs }kjk dEisfjax fd;k x;k g0 vLi"V 30&7&77 ¼eksgj½ iz'kk[kk inkf/kdkjh g0 vLi"V 30&7&77 Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026 5/6 5. Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in BLT Case No. 567 of 2015 with the prayer that the order in question has been passed ex-parte directing change of course of the said drain which is going to adversely affect the petitioner and the public at large. 6. It is to be noted that those who approached ‘the BLT’ have claim over Chak Nos. 56, 63, 141, 142, 144, 146, 148, 149,153,156 and ‘the Tribunal’ vide its order dated 31.01.2017 after noticing and hearing the parties allowed the petition holding that the order has been passed without giving notice to the petitioner and the public. The further observation is that the 'karha' is the government land and if the course of drains changed, the petitioners will suffer and there will be loss of water for irrigating their lands. 7. Aggrieved, the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners though submit that he has multiple points to argue, accept that the order in question was passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna without issuance of the notices to the petitioner/public at large. He submits that liberty be granted to approach the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna afresh. 9. Learned counsel representing the other side on the Patna High Court CWJC No.2380 of 2018(4) dt.16-02-2026 6/6 other hand submits that when the observation of ‘the BLT’ regarding non-issuance of the notice has been accepted, the respondents have no objection is the petitioners approaching wherever they want to. 10. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of without interfering in the order in question while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for the redressal of the grievance. 11. Needless to add, if such petition is preferred, all the aggrieved parties/public has/have to be noticed before any order is passed. 12. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Ravi/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U