Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 09-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Devendra Kumar, son of Late Jai Ram Sharma, resident of Khudauri Village, Hulasganj Police Station, Jehanabad District.
  • Respondents: The State of Bihar represented by the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Revenue and Land Reforms), Divisional Commissioner (Magadh Division, Gaya), District Magistrate cum Collector (Jehanabad), Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (Jehanabad), Deputy Collector (Lands Reforms, Jehanabad), and Circle Officer (Hulasganj, Jehanabad).
  • Nature of Petition: Writ petition seeking (a) setting aside of the order dated 29‑05‑2026 passed in Encroachment Appeal Case No.02/D.M./2025‑26 by the District Collector‑cum‑District Magistrate, Jehanabad, and the final order dated 28‑08‑2024 passed in Encroachment Case No.01 of 2024‑25 by the Circle Officer, Hulasganj; (b) stay of operation of the appellate order dated 29‑05‑2026; (c) quashing of Memo No.1033 dated 16‑06‑2026 directing removal of alleged encroachments by 01‑07‑2026; (d) any other relief deemed appropriate.
  • Land Details Presented: The petitioner asserted ownership of khatiyani land bearing Khata No.227 and 228, Khesra No.971, 376 and 1037 in Khudauri Village, Anchal‑Hulasganj, Jehanabad. Specifically, Khata No.227, Plot No.376 (20 decimal) was settled to Baliram Sharma, son of Raghunandan Singh, by a hukumnama and subsequently divided into three shares among Arun Sharma, Panpati Devi, and the petitioner, all of whom are in possession. The petitioner contended that the State has no right to treat this land as garmazarua aam.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: The encroachment orders were issued without consideration of the revenue records (khatiyani documents) and ignored the division of ownership, thereby violating statutory provisions.
  • State’s Position: The State did not dispute the factual submission regarding non‑consideration of revenue records but indicated that such a grievance should be raised through a statutory review before the District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
  • Court’s Observation: The Court noted that the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 provides a specific mechanism for review of such orders. Accordingly, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pursue a review rather than entertain the writ petition further.

Final Outcome

  • The Court directed the petitioner to file a review petition, supported by all relevant documents (including Annexure‑P‑6 and P‑7), within four weeks from the date of the order.
  • The Court clarified that if the review petition is filed within three weeks, the status quo shall be maintained until final orders on the review are recorded.
  • The writ petition is hereby disposed of with the above observations and directions.

Topics: Land Encroachment, Judicial Review