Patna High Court – Orders
Dilip Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 19 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1749 of 2022
======================================================
1. Dilip Kumar Singh Son of Late Hem Chand Singh Resident of Village -
Sarsauni, Ahilgaon, P.S. - Kasba (Jalalgarh) Distt. - Purnea (Bihar).
2. Manoj Kumar Singh, Son of Munnilal Singh, Resident of Village - Sarsauni,
Ahilgaon, P.S. - Kasba (Jalalgarh) Distt. - Purnea (Bihar).
3. Radha Devi, Wife of Dhirendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Sarsauni,
Ahilgaon, P.S. - Kasba (Jalalgarh) Distt. - Purnea (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Collector of the District, Purnea.
2. The Collector of the District, Purnea.
3. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Purnea.
4. The Sub-divisional Officer (SDO) Sadar, Purnea.
5. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea.
6. The Anchala Adhikari, Kasba, Purnea.
7. Smt. Jaya Devi W/o Late Krityanand Biswas (D/o Late Munni Lal Biswas)
resident of Village - Simariya, P.S. - Kasba Distt. - Purnea (Bihar) PIN -
854327.
8. Shashi Kumar Singh, S/o Late Krityanand Biswas, Resident of Village -
Simaria, P.S.- Garhbanaili, Distt. - Purnea (Bihar).
9. Anuradha Devi, W/o Sri Deepak Kumar Singh (D/O Late Krityanand
Biswas) Resident of Village - Simaria, P.S.- Garhbanaili, Distt. - Purnea
(Bihar).
10. Anita Devi, W/o Sri Anirudh Prasad Biswas (D/o Late Krityanand Biswas)
Resident of Village - Simaria, P.S.- Garhbanaili, Distt. - Purnea (Bihar).
11. Archana Devi, W/o Sri Ajit Kumar (D/O Late Krityanand Biswas) resident
of Village - Chak, P.S. Jalalgarh, Distt. - Purnea (Bihar).
12. Veena Devi Wife of Sri Bivendra Kumar Singh (Daughter of Late Jiya Lal
Singh and Late Usha Rani Devi) Resident of Village - Chakhat, Garhbanaili,
P.S.- Jalalgarh, Distt. - Purnea (Bihar).
13. Chanchala Devi Wife of Sri Mayanand Prasad Biswas @ Manoj Kumar
(Daughter of Late Jiya Lal Singh and Late Usha Rani Devi) Resident of
Village - Park Tole, Baraitha P.S. Garhbanaili, Distt. - Purnea (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. ShashiNath Jha, Advocate
Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC 25
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
2/15
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
5 19-08-2025
The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
“(1) That in this writ application, the
petitioners pray for issuance of appropriate
writ/order/direction in the nature of
Mandamus against the respondents for:-
(i) Excluding the lands of the petitioners
from the Gazette Notification dated 2784 dated
19.08.1990 published U/S 15(1) of the Land
Ceiling Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as
Act) with respect to Land Ceiling Case No.
109 of 1976-77/585 of 1973-74 (State of Bihar
Vs. Smt. Jaya Devi) as contained in Annexure-
3 hereto.
(ii) Modifying the Gazette Publication
U/S 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act, 1961 dated
19.08.1990 (Annx-3) so far as it relates to the
lands of the present petitioners and publish a
new Notification U/S 15(1) of the Act by
excluding the lands of the petitioners from the
personal lands of the land-holder -Resp. no. 7,
which have wrongly been shown as surplus
(iii) Holding and declaring that the lands
in question are the exclusive raiyati lands of
the present petitioners and there was no
occasion/justification for the respondents
-authorities to club the lands of the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
3/15
petitioners along with the lands of the land
holder-Resp. no.7
(iv) Restraining the respondents-
authorities from dispossessing the petitioners
from the lands in question as detailed in para
no. 4 hereto which have wrongly and illegally
been declared as surplus along with other
lands of the land holder-Resp. No. 7.
(v) Granting any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner may be found entitled to.”
2. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that the petitioners
are claiming title over following lands in question as delineated
below by virtue of purchase from one Krityanand Biswas:-
I. Petitioner No. 1
Mauza Khata Plot No. Area
No.
a. Dehiya P.S. 33/32/31 1034/882/832 0.56 Dec.
b. -Kasba, 1039/1088/83 0.81 Dec.
Distt. 7
-Purnea
Total 1.37 Dec.
II. Petitioner No.- 2
Mauza Khata Plot No. Area
No.
a. Dehiya P.S. -Kasba, 42 347/39 1 Acre 10
Distt. -Purnea Dec.
b. 139 621 0.03 Dec.
Total 1 Acre 13
Dec.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
4/15III. Petitioner No.-3
Mauza Khata No. Plot No. Area
a. Dehiya P.S. -Kasba, 127 1740 0.47 Dec.
Distt. -Purnea 0.81 Dec.
Total 1.37 Dec.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased
the above-mentioned lands in question on different dates in the
year 1971, 1981 and 1982 from one Krityanand Biswas, since
deceased (husband of private respondent no. 7).
4. Further, case of the petitioners is that the Collector,
Purnea issued a notification dated 19 th August, 1990 under Section
15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter described as
‘1961 Act’). Section 15 of the said Act runs thus:
“15. Acquisition of Surplus land.-
[(1) The State Government or the Collector of
the district specially so empowered in this
behalf shall after the statement under sub-
section (1) of Section 11 has been finally
published and subject to appeal or revision, if
any, acquire, the surplus land by publishing in
the Official Gazette of the district, a
notification to the effect that such land is
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
5/15required for a public purpose and such
publication shall be conclusive evidence of the
notice of the acquisition to the person or
persons concerned :
Provided that without awaiting the
result of appeal or revision the State
Government or the Collector of the district
specially so empowered in this behalf may
proceed to acquire such of the surplus land of
the land-holder in respect of which there is no
claim or dispute or which is admitted by the
land-holder to be surplus:
Provided further that a copy of the
notification shall also be sent to the
landholder concerned by registered post with
acknowledgment due.
[(2) On the publication of the
notification under sub-section (1), the land
specified in the notification shall, subject to
the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have
been acquired for the purposes of this Act and
vested in the State free from all encumbrances
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
6/15with effect from the date of the notification and
all right, title and interest of all persons
claiming interest therein shall, with effect from
that date, be deemed to have been
extinguished.] [Substituted by Act 1 of 1973.]
(3) [ Subject to [* * * * *] [Existing
sub-sections (3) to (5) omitted and sub-
sections (6) & (7) renumbered as (3) & (4)
thereof by Act 7 of 1978.] any order made on
appeal or revision the Collector may at any
time after the publication of the notification
under sub-section (1) take possession of any
land specified in the said notification and may
for that purposes use such force as may be
necessary.
(4) If the mortgagor becomes
entitled to recover possession of his mortgaged
land under Section 12 of the Bihar Money-
Lenders Act, 1974 (Bihar Act XXII of 1975)
and the area of such mortgaged land, together
with the land, if any, held by him anywhere in
the State, exceeds the ceiling area, then the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
7/15
provisions of Section 18 shall apply thereto as
if such mortgaged lands were in acquisition
under that section and thereafter the land
which the mortgagor is not entitled to retain
shall be deemed to have been acquired for the
purposes of this Act and vested in the State in
accordance with sub-section (2).]
[15A. Voluntary declaration of
surplus land. [Inserted by Act 12 of 1976.]-
(1)Notwithstanding any thing contained in
Section 15 or any other provisions of this Act,
where a Notification under Section 6 has been
published, the State Government may, pending
final publication of the Statement under sub-
section (1) of Section 11, issue notice to any
land-holder or to all land holders generally,
calling upon him or them to surrender to the
State such area which according to him or
them is owned or held in excess of the ceiling
area prescribed under Section 4.
(2) The land-holder to whom such
notice is issued under sub-section (1) may
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
8/15
thereupon make an application to the
Collector in the prescribed form offering to
make such surrender.
(3) If the land-holder is a minor or
of unsound mind, the offer of surrender shall
be made by his guardian.
(4) Where the land-holder or his
guardian, as the case may be, makes an
application to the Collector offering to
surrender his surplus land the State
Government shall on the recommendation of
the Collector acquire the surplus land
specified in the application or any part thereof
by publishing a notice in the manner provided
in sub-section (1) of Section 15 and thereupon
such land shall be deemed to have vested in
the State Government under sub-section (2) of
Section 15 of the Act.
(5) The order passed under sub-
section (4) shall be subject to provisions
contained in Section 11 relating to the final
publication of the draft statement and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
9/15
Collector shall, at the time of making final
publication of draft statement under Section
11, make such alteration or modification in the
order passed under subsection (4) as may be
necessary.]”
5. It is alleged by the petitioners that the notification
dated 19th August, 1990 was published in the name of Shrimati
Jaya Devi, daughter of one Munilal Biswas, since deceased for
acquisition of surplus land. In the said notification, the Collector
wrongly introduced the purchased land of the petitioners though
the said land was not owned by Jaya Devi or her predecessor in
interest, namely, Munnilal Biswas. One Binesh Kumar Biswas &
Others challenged the said notification before this Court in CWJC
No. 5903 of 1990. The said writ petition was disposed of by the
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25th April 1991. In
the said writ petition also, the petitioners challenged the Gazette
Notification dated 19th August 1990 on the similar ground that
they purchased the lands in question specifically described in the
foregoing paragraph from one Jiya Lal Biswas and Krityanand
Biswas but the said land was included in the property of Shrimati
Jaya Devi and it was declared surplus. The writ petition was
disposed of with the following direction:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
10/15“If the petitioners are so advised
they may file an application under Section 37
of the Ceiling Act before the Collector, Purnea
within three weeks from today. If what the
petitioners”10. The declaration under Section
15(1) of the Act in Ceiling Case No.
1854/1274/1973-1974 in the then district of
Purnea, later on Kishanganj, by which the
lands in question totalling an area of 6.59
acres, after being held to be surplus land of
the- ex-landholder Pradip Chandra Lal, has
been acquired by the State of Bihar, stands
quashed as far as the lands of the petitioners
are concerned, for a total of 6.59 acres.
11. The notification under Section
15(1) of the Act automatically stands
modified/corrected to the extent indicated
above. The authorities are further directed to
notify such exclusion by issuance of a fresh
notification which may be done within one
month from the date of production of a copy of
this order before the Collector, Kishanganj
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
11/15(respondent no. 2).” say is correct then it is an
obvious mistake which can be rectified by
amending the notification, annexure-9. The
petitioners claim that they are still in
possession of the lands in question. If that is
so, they shall not be disturbed till the disposal
of the application.”
6. It is pertinent to note that petitioner no. 1 and others
in CWJC No. 5903 of 1990 are the brothers and co-purchasers of
the land in question with the present petitioners, therefore, the
status of the present petitioners is identical to the petitioners in the
said writ petition, where the validity of Gazette Notification under
Section 15(1) of the ‘1961 Act’ was directly and substantially an
issue between the same parties or between the parties under whom
or any of them claim, litigating under the same title. When the
previous writ petition was disposed of by a specific direction,
subsequent writ petition for almost identical relief challenging
gazette notification dated 19th August 1990 under the garb of the
order passed in Misc. Ceiling Case No. 104 of 1991-92 on 05 th
March 2019 is hit by the principle of res judicata.
7. There is another twist in the matter, after the order
dated 25th April 1991 having being passed in CWJC No. 5903 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
12/15
1990 giving liberty to the petitioners to file an application under
Section 37 of the Ceiling Act before the Collector for appropriate
relief, Section 37 was struck down by Act 8 of 1997 dated 27 th
March 1997. Therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to get any
relief under Section 37 of the Ceiling Act of 1961.
8. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has laid a
great stress on a Co-ordinate Bench’s decision of this Court in
Md. Shafique Alam and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and
Others reported in 2020(2) PLJR 764. In the said reported
decision, the petitioners are the descendants of the purchasers of
land through registered sale deed from the ancestors of
respondents no. 5 to 10 in the year 1965. Subsequently, in 1973-74
the proceeding was started in under the ‘1961 Act’ with regard to
vendors of the land in question. In the instant case, the petitioners
challenged the said notification (annexure 3) on the ground that
the land purchased by them was wrongly included in the surplus
land of one Jaya Devi. In the aforementioned reported decision,
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held in paragraph no. 8 as
hereunder:-
“8. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
13/15that the action of the authorities cannot be
sustained. The petitioners grievance with
regard to non consideration of the case by the
authorities stands established. Further, the
Court would also indicate here that till date,
neither the sale deed in favour of the ancestors
of the petitioners has been annulled nor
the Jamabandi created in their favour followed
by issuance of rent receipt in their favour has
been interfered with by any of the authorities
and most importantly, there is no adverse
report to indicate that such transaction was
with the object of defeating or in contravention
of any of the provisions of the Act. The reports
of the authorities further indicate that till date,
the lands in question are in the possession of
the petitioners.”
9. The Court accordingly held in paragraph no. 10 and
11 as follows:
“10. The declaration under Section
15(1) of the Act in Ceiling Case No.
1854/1274/1973-1974 in the then district of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
14/15Purnea, later on Kishanganj, by which the
lands in question totalling an area of 6.59
acres, after being held to be surplus land of
the- ex-landholder Pradip Chandra Lal, has
been acquired by the State of Bihar, stands
quashed as far as the lands of the petitioners
are concerned, for a total of 6.59 acres.
11. The notification under Section
15(1) of the Act automatically stands
modified/corrected to the extent indicated
above. The authorities are further directed to
notify such exclusion by issuance of a fresh
notification which may be done within one
month from the date of production of a copy of
this order before the Collector, Kishanganj
(respondent no. 2).”
10. In the instant case, the petitioners are claiming their
right title and ownership over the property in question on the basis
of their deeds executed by Kritayanand Biswas. The petitioners
could not produce even a chit of paper to show ownership of
Krityanand Biswas which was transferred in favour of the
petitioners. Unless and until these documents, relating to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2022(5) dt.19-08-2025
15/15
ownership of Krityanand Biswas is produced before the Court for
examination and adjudication, it is not possible for the writ court
to hold that the land transferred by Krityanand Biswas was
wrongly notified in the Gazette Notification, specially when the
Gazette Notification holds evidentiary value which is of course
rebuttable by the petitioners.
11. The petitioners, however, failed to rebut the
evidentiary value of the Gazette Notification dated 19th August
1990 producing acceptable documents relating to ownership of
Krityanand Biswas. Even, no Jamabandi in the name of
Krityanand Biswas has been filed by the petitioners.
12. In view of such circumstances, this Court is not in a
position to grant relief to the petitioners as claimed by them. The
instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on contest. There
shall, however, be no order as to cost.
13. This order, however, does not debar the petitioners
to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if available to
them.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Suraj Dubey/-
U