Case Background
This case arises from a long-running land dispute in District Supaul, Bihar, involving agricultural land recorded under Khata No. 129, Khesra Nos. 1670, 1627, 1669, 1700, and 1696, situated at Mauja Sukhanagar.
The petitioners had earlier approached the revenue authorities by filing B.L.D.R. Case No. 13 of 2012 before the Court of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), Birpur. On 19.04.2012, that case was allowed in their favour, which led to correction in the jamabandi entries.
The private respondent, claiming rights over the same property, challenged that order in B.L.D.R. Appeal No. 198 of 2012 before the Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa. On 26.12.2014, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal.
Still aggrieved, the private respondent then filed B.L.T. Case No. 106 of 2015. On 10.05.2016, that case was disposed of with a direction that the question of title should be decided by a competent civil court, rather than by revenue authorities.
Thereafter, the private respondent approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 12103 of 2016, challenging the order passed in the B.L.T. case. On 21.01.2019, the High Court disposed of that writ petition, directing that the matter be dealt with in the light of the judgment in Maheshwar Mandal & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2018 (3) PLJR 1007. The High Court clarified that any decision of the D.C.L.R. on the question of title shall not be treated as adjudication of the parties’ right, title, and interest, and both sides were given liberty to approach a competent civil court.
Following this direction, the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 34 of 2019 before the Court of Sub-Judge, Birpur on 28.03.2019, seeking declaration of their right and title over the disputed land.
During the pendency of this title suit, the Circle Officer, Pratapganj issued Letter No. 327-2 dated 10.05.2019, by which the petitioners’ jamabandi was cancelled and mutation was carried out, allegedly restoring the position prior to the B.L.D.R. orders. This order was passed citing compliance with the earlier High Court order in CWJC No. 12103 of 2016.
Feeling aggrieved by this cancellation of jamabandi and the mutation order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13203 of 2019, before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman, heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the State, and the private respondent.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the Circle Officer’s order dated 10.05.2019, communicated through Letter No. 327-2, was illegal and should be quashed. He stated that the Circle Officer had effectively cancelled the petitioners’ jamabandi under the guise of complying with the High Court’s earlier order in CWJC No. 12103 of 2016.
The petitioners contended that they had already complied with the High Court’s direction by filing Title Suit No. 34 of 2019 on 28.03.2019 before the Sub-Judge, Birpur, seeking a declaration of their right and title. According to them, once the civil court was seized of the title dispute, the revenue authority could not proceed with mutation affecting the same property.
They also submitted that the Circle Officer passed the impugned order without issuing any notice to the petitioners, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Additionally, they pointed out that the revenue proceeding was initiated against their father, who had already died, yet orders were passed without proper substitution or opportunity to them.
The petitioners further argued that the impugned mutation order was in gross violation of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, especially because it was passed during the pendency of a title suit over the same land. In their view, no such order could legally be made while the matter was before a civil court.
On the other hand, the State’s counsel submitted that by the impugned letter, the Circle Officer had merely restored the position that existed prior to the order passed in the B.L.D.R. case. He pointed out that in CWJC No. 12103 of 2016, the High Court had clearly held that the decision of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on the question of title shall not be treated as a final adjudication of the parties’ rights. Liberty was granted to approach the civil court.
On that basis, the State took the stand that since the High Court had limited the effect of the D.C.L.R.’s decision only regarding title, the Circle Officer’s act of restoring the earlier position was legally justified. However, the State’s counsel fairly conceded that if a title suit was indeed pending, then under Section 6(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, the Circle Officer would be barred from carrying out mutation.
The private respondent’s counsel argued that they claim the property by virtue of a sale deed executed in 1952 and that the petitioners had “by some means” obtained an order from the B.L.D.R. in 2012, which disturbed a longstanding jamabandi in the private respondent’s name. He recounted the history of challenges to the D.C.L.R.’s order through the Commissioner, then the B.L.T., and finally before the High Court in CWJC No. 12103 of 2016.
According to the private respondent, the High Court in that earlier writ had disregarded the D.C.L.R.’s adjudication on title, based on which the petitioners’ names had been entered in the jamabandi. Thus, the Circle Officer’s impugned order was, in their view, fully in line with the High Court’s directions and legally sustainable. He also contended that the petitioners had approached the High Court directly without availing alternative remedies.
The private respondent’s counsel further stated that they were not aware whether any title suit was pending, but they relied on the High Court’s earlier conclusion that the D.C.L.R. lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate title. Therefore, they argued, the situation prior to the B.L.T. decision ought to be restored, which the Circle Officer had done.
After hearing all parties, the Patna High Court examined the factual position. It noted that Title Suit No. 34 of 2019 was indeed pending before the Sub-Judge, Birpur, which is the competent civil court. In that suit, admission had been made and notices were ordered to be issued on 03.04.2019.
Despite the pendency of this civil suit, the Circle Officer proceeded to pass an order on 10.05.2019, changing the jamabandi and issuing the mutation order communicated by Letter No. 327-2 dated 10.05.2019.
The Court then examined Section 6(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. It specifically noted that this provision “clearly is very much clear” that when a title suit is pending with respect to the property in dispute, the Circle Officer shall not pass any order regarding mutation.
The Court also referred back to its own earlier order in CWJC No. 12103 of 2016. It observed that the concern expressed there was confined to the question of title adjudicated by the D.C.L.R., and that no finding had been given on the question of possession.
Taking a balanced view, the Court expressed a firm opinion that the property in dispute must be preserved in its existing condition and that no third-party rights should be created in respect of that property either by the petitioners or by the private respondent while the title suit is pending.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that neither side shall create any third-party rights in the disputed property (Khata No. 129, Khesra Nos. 1670, 1627, 1669, 1700, and 1696, Mauja Sukhanagar).
The Court further directed the Circle Officer, Pratapganj, District Supaul, not to take any further action in the matter until Title Suit No. 34 of 2019 attains finality.
Most significantly, the High Court ordered that the impugned order, i.e., Letter No. 327-2 dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Circle Officer, shall remain stayed until the final adjudication of the dispute in Title Suit No. 34 of 2019.
Both parties were directed to appear before the civil court for final adjudication of their dispute. With these directions and without recording any finding on the question of possession, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for landholders and purchasers in Bihar who are involved in land disputes where both revenue authorities and civil courts are engaged.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that when a title suit is pending in a competent civil court, the Circle Officer cannot pass mutation orders regarding the same property under Section 6(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
For ordinary landowners, this means that if they are already fighting a title case in a civil court, their jamabandi or mutation entries should not be changed by the Circle Officer until the civil court decides the matter.
The judgment also assures that property will be preserved in its current state during such disputes, and neither party can create third-party rights, such as selling or otherwise transferring the disputed property to others while the litigation is ongoing.
By staying the Circle Officer’s order and directing both parties to pursue the civil suit, the Patna High Court reinforces that revenue authorities cannot decide complex questions of title and must defer to civil courts when such suits are pending.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the Circle Officer pass a mutation order affecting disputed land when a title suit over the same land is already pending in a civil court?
Answer: No. Under Section 6(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, the Circle Officer is barred from passing any mutation order when a title suit concerning that property is pending, and any such order must effectively remain inoperative until the suit is finally decided. - Issue: What interim steps should be taken regarding the disputed property while the civil title suit is pending?
Answer: The property should be preserved in its existing condition, no third-party rights should be created by either side, the Circle Officer should not take further action, and any impugned mutation order (here, Letter No. 327-2 dated 10.05.2019) should remain stayed until final adjudication in the title suit. - Issue: Did the earlier High Court decision in CWJC No. 12103 of 2016 authorize the Circle Officer to cancel the petitioners’ jamabandi during the pendency of the title suit?
Answer: No. The earlier decision only clarified that the D.C.L.R.’s decision on title would not be treated as final adjudication and that parties were free to approach the civil court. It did not override the statutory bar in Section 6(12) or allow mutation during a pending title suit.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Maheshwar Mandal & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2018 (3) PLJR 1007
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13203 of 2019
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Singh alias Sunil Singh & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 287
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Date of Judgment: 19.06.2025
Advocates:
- For the petitioners: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
- For the respondents (State): Mr. Dhurjati Kr. Prasad, G.P. 14
Private Respondent: Bhupendra Lal Das (as recorded in the cause title)
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging cancellation of jamabandi and mutation order (Letter No. 327-2 dated 10.05.2019) passed by the Circle Officer during pendency of a title suit.
Link to judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTMyMDMjMjAxOSMxI04=-Bb–am1–z9Jx4IXQ=
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.
