IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1398 of 2021 ====================================================== Anuplal Sah Son of Late Bhagwat Sah Resident of Village- Shivganj, P.S.- Rajapakar, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali at Hajipur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Hajipur, District- Vaishali. 6. The Circle Officer, Hajipur, District- Vaishali. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Shivganj, P.S.- Rajapakar, District- Vaishali. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-15. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and 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:- “(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents authority not to construct a public road upon the private raiyati land of the petitioner upon the Plot No. 253 as per order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali at Hajipur passed in Consolidation Case No. 21/1997 and 41/1997 as by this order area of the Plot No. 251 has got corrected and accordingly a direction be given to the Block Development Officer and Mukhiya to take afresh measurement in the presence of the petitioner and after subtracting the area of the Plot No. 253 road may be constructed. Patna High Court CWJC No.1398 of 2021(6) dt.13-01-2026 2/4 ii) For further direction to the Respondents Authority to hold an enquiry with regard to the action of the Block Development Officer and Mukhiya of the concern Gram Panchayat who taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner is constructing a public road with the government fund without consent and acquisition of the land in question.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the land in question appertains to C.S. Plot No. 252 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 924, situated in village Ahmadpur Lakhni Chakauliya, P.S. Rajapakar, District Vaishali. C.S. Plot Nos. 251, 252 and 253 were, on the spot, amalgamated into one compact block having a residential house and were recorded in the name of the ancestors of the petitioner, who remained in exclusive possession thereof. At the time of Revisional Survey, the father and uncle of the petitioner were in possession, and accordingly R.S. Plot No. 924 was prepared out of the aforesaid C.S. plots, showing the residential house recorded in their names. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though no road existed in the Cadastral Map, due to an error on the part of the survey authorities, a public road was wrongly shown in the Revisional Survey Map over a portion of C.S. Plot No. 252 and some part thereof was erroneously amalgamated with Plot No. 698, which was wrongly recorded in the name of the State of Bihar. For correction of such errors, the father of the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 21/1997 and the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. Patna High Court CWJC No.1398 of 2021(6) dt.13-01-2026 3/4 41/1997 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, and vide orders dated 06.06.1997 and 24.12.1997, the area of R.S. Plot No. 924 was duly corrected to 0.22 decimal and 1¼ decimal of land was ordered to be amalgamated from Plot No. 698 to Plot No. 924. The said orders attained finality, remained unchallenged, and the petitioner continued in peaceful possession with a residential house. Subsequently, taking advantage of the petitioner’s absence from the village, an encroachment proceeding was initiated, culminating in adverse orders, which led to filing of CWJC No. 1899 of 2004 that was allowed by this Hon’ble Court with remand, and thereafter CWJC No. 3815 of 2008 challenging the measurement report, which came to be dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is confined to the extent that the respondent authorities, despite the subsisting and operative orders of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, are proceeding to construct a road over the raiyati land of the petitioner without carrying out measurement in accordance with the said orders, and in connivance with the Mukhiya and Block Development Officer, ignoring the petitioner’s representations seeking protection of his settled land. 4. From perusal of the office note dated 07.01.2026, it Patna High Court CWJC No.1398 of 2021(6) dt.13-01-2026 4/4 appears that in spite of specific direction of this Court, the Mukhiya has refused to accept the notice and appear before this Court, though at the time of service of notice, husband of Mukhiya was present. Taking note of Order 5 Rule 17 CPC, I find it will be a valid service of notice, but deliberate inaction on the part of the Mukhiya calls this Court to direct the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar to proceed to remove the Mukhiya from the post as the allegation against the Mukhiya is that she in connivance with the Block Development Officer has started construction of a road illegally without taking consent of the petitioner. It is also informed that some suitable sites are available in the said village where the Panchayati Raj Bhawan can be constructed. Such arbitrary action should not be condoned in any manner. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of. mantreshwar/- (Purnendu Singh, J) U