Case Background
The dispute concerns land said to be used for Mahavir Mandir and Kali Mandir in Araria district. The appellant claimed to be in peaceful possession of the temple land.
A proceeding was earlier decided by the D.C.L.R., Araria in B.L.D.R. Case No. 07/22-23 by order dated 31.03.2023. This order went in favour of the appellant.
Respondent No. 5 challenged that order before the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Land Dispute Appeal Case No. 78/2023. On 30.11.2024, the Divisional Commissioner set aside the D.C.L.R.’s order.
The Divisional Commissioner directed the D.C.L.R. to earmark or carve out the land being used for Mahavir Mandir and Kali Mandir, in terms of an affidavit No. 1501/2024 filed by respondent No. 5. The rest of the land was directed to be handed over to respondent No. 5.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2242 of 2025 before the Patna High Court. He sought quashing of the Divisional Commissioner’s order and a direction that his possession over the temple land not be disturbed.
On 20.02.2025, a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition. The Single Judge noted that, under Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009, the appellant had an alternative and specific remedy before the Bihar Land Tribunal against the impugned order. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, but the appellant was permitted to approach the Tribunal within four weeks.
Instead of going to the Tribunal, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 280 of 2025) before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, challenging the Single Judge’s order.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh, heard the parties on 07.01.2026.
The central question before the Bench was narrow: whether the learned Single Judge was right in refusing to entertain the writ petition and in directing the appellant to go to the Bihar Land Tribunal.
The judgment records that the writ petition had sought three main reliefs. First, a writ of certiorari to set aside the Divisional Commissioner’s order dated 30.11.2024 in Land Dispute Appeal Case No. 78/2023, which had reversed the D.C.L.R.’s order dated 31.03.2023 in B.L.D.R. Case No. 07/22-23 and had directed carving out of temple land and handing over of the remaining land to respondent No. 5.
Second, a writ of mandamus directing the authorities not to disturb the appellant’s peaceful possession over the temple land. Third, any other appropriate relief in the facts of the case.
The Single Judge had declined to go into the merits of the Divisional Commissioner’s order. Instead, in the operative part of the writ order, the Court observed that because of Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009, the appellant had an alternative statutory remedy. The appellant was therefore granted liberty to approach the Tribunal within four weeks.
Before the Division Bench, learned counsel for the appellant accepted that the matter could indeed be raised before the Bihar Land Tribunal, and that the Tribunal had the power to interfere with the impugned order.
However, counsel argued that there was “palpable illegality” in the Divisional Commissioner’s order dated 30.11.2024. On this basis, he urged that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should itself interfere with the order rather than sending the appellant to the Tribunal.
The Division Bench then turned to Section 9 of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009. Sub-section (1), along with clause (x), was quoted in the judgment. It states that the Tribunal has the power to entertain any application against final orders passed by appropriate authorities under the Acts or Manuals listed, provided no other appeal or revision is given in those Acts or Manuals. Clause (x) specifically includes the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009.
Thus, where a final order is passed under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009, and where that Act itself does not provide another forum for appeal or revision, the Bihar Land Tribunal can be approached within 90 days.
The Division Bench observed that, in view of this clear statutory scheme, an “alternative efficacious remedy” was available to the appellant before the Tribunal. In such a situation, the consistent legal principle is that a writ court generally should not entertain a writ petition at the first instance.
The Bench recorded that this is the “settled position of law”: when an alternative, effective remedy exists, the High Court normally declines to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, except in rare situations which were not found to exist here.
Applying this to the case, the Court held that the Single Judge’s order, which directed the appellant to move the Bihar Land Tribunal instead of continuing the writ, was correct. The Single Judge had rightly relied on Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009. Therefore, the Division Bench found “no illegality” in the impugned order.
The Court emphasised that this Letters Patent Appeal had a “limited scope”. Since the question was only whether the Single Judge’s refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction was proper, and as the statute clearly provided another remedy, the Bench declined to re-examine the land dispute on its merits.
Accordingly, the Court was “not inclined to entertain” the Letters Patent Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed.
After the Court announced its decision, counsel for the appellant informed the Bench that, till that date, no application had been filed before the Bihar Land Tribunal, even though the Single Judge had allowed four weeks for the same.
Taking note of this, the Division Bench clarified what the appellant could still do. It stated that, if the appellant was so advised, he could approach the Bihar Land Tribunal.
The Court also addressed the question of limitation. Under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, any application has to be filed within 90 days from the date of the final order. Because the appellant had spent time pursuing first the writ petition and then the Letters Patent Appeal, there might be a delay in filing before the Tribunal.
The Division Bench therefore observed that if the appellant filed a limitation application (an application for condonation of delay) along with his main application before the Tribunal, the Tribunal should consider it “in accordance with law”. While doing so, the Tribunal would take into account that the appellant had already approached the writ court and also filed this Letters Patent Appeal.
In other words, although the Court declined to entertain the appeal, it ensured that the appellant would not be shut out merely because he had taken the writ route first. The Tribunal was left free to decide on condonation of delay, but with a clear indication that the time spent in the High Court could be considered.
The judgment does not discuss the detailed merits of the temple land dispute, the correctness of the Divisional Commissioner’s factual findings, or the competing claims of the parties over the land. All those questions have been left open for the Bihar Land Tribunal to decide, if and when the appellant files an application there.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for anyone involved in land disputes in Bihar, especially cases covered by the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009.
The Patna High Court has clearly said that when a special law provides a specific remedy before the Bihar Land Tribunal, parties should first go there instead of directly coming to the High Court.
For ordinary citizens, this means that if an authority like a D.C.L.R. or Divisional Commissioner passes a final order in a land dispute under that Act, the next step is usually the Bihar Land Tribunal. A writ petition may not be entertained unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The judgment also offers some protection to litigants who first go to the High Court by mistake. It records that if they later file before the Tribunal along with a delay-condonation application, the Tribunal should consider the fact that they had been pursuing their case in the High Court.
In simple terms, the case reinforces two points: use the proper statutory forum (the Tribunal) for land disputes, and understand that the High Court will normally step back when such a remedy exists, focusing instead on ensuring that the correct procedure is followed.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the High Court entertain a writ petition against a final order under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 when the Bihar Land Tribunal is available as an alternative remedy under Section 9(x) of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009?
Answer: No. Since an effective statutory remedy exists before the Bihar Land Tribunal, the writ court should not ordinarily intervene. The Single Judge rightly directed the appellant to approach the Tribunal, and the Letters Patent Appeal challenging that decision was dismissed. - Issue: What is the effect of time spent in pursuing writ and appellate remedies in the High Court on limitation for filing before the Bihar Land Tribunal?
Answer: The Division Bench stated that, if the appellant files an application before the Tribunal along with a request to condone delay, the Tribunal must consider it according to law, taking into account that the appellant had pursued the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal in the High Court.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely on any specific cited case law. It proceeds on the basis of the statutory provision and the general principle regarding alternative remedies.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 280 of 2025 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2242 of 2025
Case Title: Saroj Kumar Rakshit @ Nanu Da @ Saroj Rakshit @ Nanu Baba vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh
Citation: 2026(1) PLJR 637
Advocates:
- For the appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Praveer Kumar Thakur, Advocate
- For the State (respondent nos. 1 to 4): Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12; Mr. Arun Bhagat, AC to AAG-12
- For respondent no. 5: Mr. Raju Giri, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate; Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
Nature of the case: Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a Single Judge in a civil writ petition concerning a land dispute under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution framework.
Date of Judgment: 07.01.2026
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in L.P.A. No. 280 of 2025
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
