Case Background
The writ petition was filed before the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1060 of 2021. The petitioner asked the Court to restrain various State authorities and local officials from demolishing his house and from constructing a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on what he claimed to be his raiyati land at village Arga Usuri, P.S. Biraul, district Darbhanga.
According to the petitioner, a piece of land measuring 13 kathas, under old Khata No. 217 (new Khata No. 866), old Khesra No. 1142 (new Khesra No. 1559), at Mauja Arga Usuri, Tauzi No. 6553, Thana No. 86, Biraul, Darbhanga, had been settled in the year 1355 fasli in favour of one Bilat Mandal at an annual rent of Rs. 2/-. He said the ex-landlords, Abdul Mazeed and Abdul Gaffar, had given physical possession and issued rent receipts.
After Bilat Mandal’s death, his four sons, including the petitioner’s father, allegedly inherited the land. The petitioner stated that an amicable partition took place between the four brothers and that separate jamabandis were created, including Jamabandi No. 494 in the name of his father, also known as Bauan Mandal. He claimed that his father continued paying rent, now to the State of Bihar.
During the revisional survey, however, new Khata No. 866 was carved out of old Khata No. 217 and old Khesra No. 1142 was renumbered as new Khesra No. 1559. The petitioner said this was done to the prejudice of the jamabandi holders.
The petitioner alleged that in the final publication in 1997, the disputed land was wrongly recorded as “Dhanhar” in the name of “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” and, in the remark column, the illegal possession of three private persons – Kakhan Mandal, Makhan Mandal and Mahendra Mandal – was shown. His father then challenged the renumbering and entry by filing Case No. 6565 of 1991 under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act before the Settlement Officer, Darbhanga, on 10.06.1997.
Later, when the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan project started, the petitioner moved an application before the Circle Officer, Biraul. The Circle Officer requested the Sub-Divisional Officer to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, leading to Case No. 334 of 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and expiry of the statutory period, that proceeding was closed without final relief to the petitioner.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Justice Mohit Kumar Shah of the Patna High Court examined both the petitioner’s claim of private ownership and the State’s case that the land was government property categorized as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar”.
The petitioner relied primarily on the old story of settlement in favour of his ancestor, the alleged partition between four brothers, creation of Jamabandi No. 494 in his father’s name and rent payments. He placed on record a rent/malgujari receipt for the year 2012–13, which, according to him, related to Jamabandi No. 494 and proved that the land was raiyati land in his family’s name.
He argued that since the jamabandi still existed in his father’s name, the authorities could not disturb his possession or construct the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan without first cancelling the jamabandi through proper proceedings.
The State contested this version through a counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Darbhanga and the District Magistrate, Darbhanga. They informed the Court that an enquiry committee had been formed under the chairmanship of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul, by memo dated 26.10.2022.
This committee, comprising the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Circle Officer, and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), carried out a spot enquiry. They visited the land at Mauja Arga Usuri, Thana No. 86, Khata No. 866, Khesra No. 1559, measuring 96 decimals, in the presence of the petitioner and other villagers.
The committee submitted its report by memo dated 04.11.2022. It recorded that the land identified for Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” category land and that a no-objection certificate had already been issued for construction of the Panchayat building. Construction had been completed up to plinth level.
Importantly, the report stated that no house stood on Khesra No. 1559. According to the villagers, the petitioner’s land lay about two kilometres away under Ward No. 1, relating to Khesra No. 826/3969. Except for the area where the Panchayat Bhawan was coming up, the rest of the land in Khesra No. 1559 was vacant.
The enquiry committee also interacted with the heirs of the three persons shown in the revisional survey khatian as illegal occupants of Khesra No. 1559 – namely, the son of Khakhan Mandal (Gangaram Mandal) and his daughter-in-law (Bhulli Devi), the son of Makhan Mandal (Ram Narayan Mandal), and the son of Mahendra Mandal (Ram Sharan Mandal). They all appeared at the site and clearly stated that they had no objection to construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on Khesra No. 1559. They had, in fact, already filed affidavits earlier in this regard.
On this basis, the enquiry committee concluded that the petitioner had no right, title or interest over the land under Khata No. 866, Khesra No. 1559, measuring 96 decimals, where the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was being constructed.
The State also pointed out that the rent/malgujari receipts filed by the petitioner did not mention any khata or khesra numbers and that no corresponding record of rights or rent receipts were traceable in the concerned Circle Office records.
After hearing both sides, the Court scrutinised the materials on record. It found that the petitioner had not produced any proof showing that the land at Khata No. 866, Khesra No. 1559, Mauza Agar-Usuri, Thana No. 86, Biraul, Darbhanga, was his raiyati land. There was neither cogent proof of title nor any document establishing creation of a valid jamabandi in his favour.
On the other hand, the record of rights (revisional survey khatian), including the extract annexed at page 19 of the writ petition itself, clearly showed that Khesra No. 1559 was recorded in the name of “Anabad Bihar Sarkar”. It described the three Mandals (Khakhan, Makhan and Mahendra) as illegal occupants, but did not mention the petitioner or his father.
The Court noted that the sole rent/malgujari receipt produced by the petitioner was for the year 2012–13 and did not bear any khata or khesra number. It observed that such a receipt could not, “by any stretch of imagination”, prove the petitioner’s right, title or interest over the land in question.
Justice Shah then referred to binding legal principles. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 34 of 2015 (State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Chandrabanshi Singh), the single-judge Bench reaffirmed that mere issuance or acceptance of rent receipts by the State does not create title to land.
The Court also cited the earlier decision in Tripathy Kiran Nath Sharma vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2005) 4 PLJR 670, and a recent Division Bench judgment dated 10.05.2024 in S. M. Ehteshamul Hasan Rehmani vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (LPA No. 1106 of 2023 and analogous case). Paragraph 19 of the latter was reproduced to stress that rent receipts do not confer title, there is no estoppel against law, and the State is not bound by unauthorised acts of its officers.
Further, the Court relied on three Supreme Court decisions: Suraj Bhan & Ors vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 186; Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; and P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483. These judgments collectively hold that mutation entries and jamabandis in revenue records neither create nor extinguish title, have no presumptive value regarding title, and are maintained only for fiscal purposes.
During the hearing, when the Court specifically asked petitioner’s counsel whether he possessed any document showing creation of the jamabandi in question, counsel admitted that he did not, and suggested such documents “might be with the respondents”. The Court treated this as further confirmation that no proper title documents had been produced.
Regarding the allegation that the authorities were about to demolish the petitioner’s house on Khesra No. 1559, the Court relied on the State’s categorical stand that no house stood on that land. The enquiry report also recorded that the land where the Panchayat Bhawan was being built was vacant and that the petitioner’s house, if any, was on another plot about two kilometres away.
On an overall assessment, the Court held that the petitioner had “set up a false and fabricated case” in order to usurp government land illegally and fraudulently, without any legally acceptable proof of title or possession. It concluded that the writ petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for villagers and landholders in Bihar who rely only on rent receipts or mutation entries to claim ownership over land, especially when government projects such as Panchayat Sarkar Bhawans are being built.
The Patna High Court has once again made it clear that rent receipts, jamabandis and mutation entries do not by themselves prove ownership. People claiming private rights over land recorded as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” must be ready with proper title documents.
The decision also shows that courts will give weight to official enquiries, revenue records and the collective statement of villagers when assessing such disputes. Filing a writ petition without solid evidence may not only fail but also attract strong judicial comments, as happened here when the Court termed the case “false and fabricated”.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Did the petitioner establish any legal right, title or interest over land recorded as Khata No. 866, Khesra No. 1559, where a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was being constructed, so as to restrain the State from construction or demolition of his alleged house?
Answer: No. The Court held that the land is recorded as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar”, that the petitioner produced no cogent title document or proof of jamabandi, that his rent receipt did not mention khata or khesra numbers and could not prove title, and that official enquiry and revenue records showed he had no right, title or interest over the disputed plot.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Chandrabanshi Singh, LPA No. 34 of 2015, judgment dated 15.12.2015 (Patna High Court).
- Tripathy Kiran Nath Sharma vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 4 PLJR 670 (Patna High Court).
- S. M. Ehteshamul Hasan Rehmani vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., LPA No. 1106 of 2023 and analogous case, judgment dated 10.05.2024 (Patna High Court).
- Suraj Bhan & Ors vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 186 (Supreme Court of India).
- Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 (Supreme Court of India).
- P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483 (Supreme Court of India).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1060 of 2021
Case Title: Ram Lakhan Mandal vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Citation: 2024(4) PLJR 555
Judgment Date: 04.10.2024
CAV Date: 24.07.2024
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction seeking restraint on demolition and on construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on alleged raiyati land.
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Ebadur Rehman Shakeb, AC to AAG-12
For respondent no. 11 (Mukhiya): Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Advocate
Link to the Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment CWJC No. 1060 of 2021
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.
