Case Background
The case arose from a dispute over where to construct a new Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan for Gram Panchayat Raj Kundri Sankurha in Block Jamui, District Jamui, Bihar.
The petitioners included the elected Mukhiya, Sarpanch, several Ward Panchs and Ward Members of the Gram Panchayat. They approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction, styling the matter as a Public Interest Litigation.
The Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, had earlier issued Letter No. 8354 dated 30.08.2022. This letter required that a minimum of 50 decimals of land be available for construction of a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan. Relying on this, the petitioners proposed Government land at plot no. 2614, khata no. 334, mauza Kundri-Sankurha, Harla, with an identified portion of 41.323 decimals out of a larger 2.61 acre parcel.
According to the petitioners, this land was Government land and, in their view, sufficient for the project, especially in light of Notification No. 281 dated 08.01.2024 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department. A Gram Sabha resolution dated 02.10.2022 had also supported the earlier proposal.
Subsequently, the Collector, Jamui (District Magistrate) sent a fresh proposal to the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, through letter no. 719 dated 02.07.2024. In this letter, another plot was recommended: plot no. 1173, khata no. 333, mauza Kundri-Sankurha, Harla, measuring 50 decimals, for the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan.
Thereafter, S.B.D. Tender No. 33/2024-25 dated 17.02.2025 was issued by the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, for construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Kundri Sankurha Panchayat, based on the new site.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging both the Collector’s recommendation of the new site and the subsequent tender, and sought directions to construct the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on their originally proposed plot no. 2614.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, examined the rival versions presented in the writ petition, the State’s counter affidavit and the petitioners’ rejoinder.
The petitioners attacked letter no. 719 dated 02.07.2024, by which the Collector, Jamui proposed plot no. 1173 for the Panchayat Bhawan. They claimed that this decision was:
(a) contrary to the State’s own guidelines; (b) contrary to the Gram Sabha resolution dated 02.10.2022; and (c) taken without due consideration of objections and recommendations.
They also alleged that the change of site was influenced by a former Member of the Bihar Legislative Council and amounted to a colourable exercise of power, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
On facts, the petitioners said that only 5 decimals of land were actually available at the new site and that it was not located at the village headquarters. In contrast, they claimed that the earlier proposed Government land at plot no. 2614, part of a larger 2.61 acre parcel, was sufficient and centrally located for the Panchayat.
In their rejoinder, the petitioners further asserted that:
(i) The land at Harla proposed by them was within the village headquarter, supported by checklists prepared by authorities (Annexure-P/4). They described the Circle Officer’s letter dated 10.10.2025 as a post facto justification. (ii) The land chosen for the current construction had allegedly been approved earlier for a PACS Godown by letter no. 1341 dated 09.10.2023, making it inappropriate for a Panchayat Bhawan. (iii) Even though plot no. 2614 was described as “Dagar” land, they asserted that its breadth and width were adequate and, as per departmental checklists (Annexures P/3 and P/4), it was suitable and free from infirmities.
The State authorities, particularly respondent nos. 3 to 8, filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining how the decision in favour of plot no. 1173 was taken.
They stated that, initially, the Collector, Jamui had forwarded proposal letter no. 33 dated 09.01.2024 for construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on plot no. 2164, khata no. 334, with area 41.323 decimals described as “Gairmajarua Aam” land of nature “Dagar”. A report was obtained from the Circle Officer, Jamui regarding this land.
The Circle Officer, through enquiry report letter no. 713 dated 25.06.2024, stated that as per the survey map, plot no. 1173, khata no. 333, mauza Kundri-Sankurha, Harla, had an area of 1.05 acres. However, in the “gairmajarua” register, only 5 decimals were recorded. Even so, the Circle Officer reported that 50 decimals of land in plot no. 1173 were suitable for construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan.
Based on this measurement report, the Collector, Jamui sent proposal letter no. 719 dated 02.07.2024 to the Additional Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department. The proposal identified plot no. 1173, khata no. 333, area 50 decimals at mauza Kundri-Sankurha, Harla, as suitable for the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, clarifying that it was free from being “Gairmajarua Aam”, land ceiling restrictions, forest cover, water body or any other land dispute.
Subsequently, the Block Panchayati Raj Officer sought an updated status report from the Circle Officer on 19.09.2025. In response, the Circle Officer filed an enquiry report by letter no. 1237 dated 10.10.2025 on the complaint of the present petitioners.
In this letter, the Circle Officer clearly mentioned that construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was taking place at Kundri-Sankurha Panchayat, which is the headquarter village of the Gram Panchayat. This, the officer noted, was in line with departmental guidelines issued under letter no. 8354 dated 30.08.2022, which stated that construction should generally be in the headquarter village. The officer also referred to earlier guidelines in Letter No. 7593 dated 26.11.2019, which permit selection of suitable land in another village only when land in the headquarter village is not available.
On the other hand, the proposal sent by the Mukhiya (petitioner no. 1), concerning plot no. 2614 (“Gairmajarua Aam Dagar” land), was not found suitable. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, by letter no. 588 dated 29.05.2024, therefore sought a fresh proposal, leading to the recommendation of plot no. 1173.
The State also asserted that plot no. 2614 did not lie within the headquarter of the Panchayat but in village Harla, and that its “Dagar” nature conflicted with departmental guidelines, which excluded certain types of land such as ponds, roads, embankments, canals, jungles etc. Based on these reasons, the State described the petitioners’ claim as baseless, misleading and fit to be rejected.
During hearing, senior counsel for the petitioners emphasised that the change of site was arbitrary and driven by extraneous considerations. The State’s counsel, however, relied heavily on the departmental guidelines (Annexure-P/6 to the counter affidavit), which mandated minimum 50 decimals of land and laid down procedure for selection. The State also drew the Court’s attention to a recent Division Bench judgment dated 19.09.2025 in CWJC No. 11302 of 2025 (Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr.), where similar issues had arisen and principles regarding judicial restraint in policy matters were applied.
The Bench then examined several Supreme Court decisions on the scope of judicial review over policy decisions. These included:
(a) State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh, (2011) 6 SCC 597, holding that courts should not substitute their views for the Executive in policy matters; (b) BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 333, stating that courts cannot interfere with policy unless it is arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to statutory provisions; (c) Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 664, which reiterates that courts should not examine the wisdom or correctness of policy choices; (d) Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors., 2007 SCC OnLine SC 500, where the Supreme Court held that judicial review is limited to testing whether a policy violates fundamental rights, constitutional or statutory provisions, or is manifestly arbitrary; (e) Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 606, which sets out the limited grounds on which courts can interfere with governmental decisions; (f) Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2015 SC 3335, reiterating that if a decision is backed by cogent material, falls within Article 14, is not arbitrary or irrational and is taken in public interest, courts must respect it; and (g) State of Orissa & Ors. v. Gopinath Dash & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 495, emphasising that courts are not appellate bodies in administrative or policy matters.
Applying these precedents, the Patna High Court held that the decision regarding the site of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was a policy/administrative decision of the Government. It was based on departmental guidelines, survey reports and the Collector’s assessment.
The Court noted that the earlier proposed site did not fulfil the requirement of minimum land as per the guidelines, while the new site was found suitable, located in the headquarter village and free from legal encumbrances. On this material, the Bench found no perversity, illegality, mala fides or violation of Article 14.
Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the Government’s choice of land. The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for elected Panchayat representatives and villagers who may disagree with the Government’s choice of site for public buildings like Panchayat Sarkar Bhawans.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that:
(i) The Government’s selection of land, when made according to guidelines and official reports, will usually not be disturbed by the Court; and (ii) The Court will step in only if there is clear proof of illegality, bad faith or violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
For citizens, this means that objections based only on preference or local politics are unlikely to succeed in writ petitions. The focus must be on demonstrating actual legal violations, not just that another site might be “better”.
For administrators, the judgment underlines the importance of following written guidelines, obtaining proper survey and enquiry reports and recording clear reasons. When such steps are shown, the Court is inclined to respect their decisions.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can the Patna High Court interfere, in a PIL, with the Government’s decision to change the site of a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan and direct construction on another plot preferred by local representatives?
Answer: No. The Court held that site selection, done in accordance with departmental guidelines, survey and enquiry reports, is a policy/administrative decision. In the absence of palpable illegality, mala fides or violation of Article 14 or statutory provisions, the Court will not interfere. -
Issue: Was letter no. 719 dated 02.07.2024, recommending plot no. 1173, arbitrary or contrary to the Panchayati Raj guidelines requiring a minimum of 50 decimals and preference for the headquarter village?
Answer: No. The Court accepted the State’s stand that plot no. 1173 had 50 decimals, was in the headquarter village, and was free from encumbrances, whereas the earlier proposed plot did not meet the minimum land requirement and guidelines. The decision was therefore held tenable in law.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh, (2011) 6 SCC 597
- BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Others, (2002) 2 SCC 333
- Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Others, (2000) 10 SCC 664
- Directorate of Film Festivals & Others v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Others, 2007 SCC OnLine SC 500
- Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Another v. Union of India & Others, (2000) 8 SCC 606
- Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. & Others v. Union of India (UOI) & Others, AIR 2015 SC 3335
- State of Orissa & Others v. Gopinath Dash & Others, (2005) 13 SCC 495
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15426 of 2025
Case Title: Gita Mandal & Others v. The State of Bihar & Others
Citation: 2026(2) PLJR 101
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Date of Judgment: 20.01.2026
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. Standing Counsel (11)
Respondent Authorities: State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary; Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department; District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jamui; District Panchayat Officer, Jamui; Sub Divisional Officer, Jamui; Block Development Officer, Jamui; Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Jamui; Circle Officer, Jamui; Executive Engineer, Building Division, Jamui; Baijnath Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.; Halka Karamchari, Kundri Sankurha Panchayat
Nature of the Case: Public Interest Litigation (writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction)
Result: Writ petition dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to access the Patna High Court judgment
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.
