Case Background
The dispute concerns land in Mouza Barun, now in District Aurangabad, earlier part of Gaya district. The specific land is recorded as Khata No. 171, Khesra No. 1017, measuring 1 acre and 75 decimals.
According to the writ petition, the petitioners are descendants of a common ancestor, Late Mod Narayan Pandey. His son, Ram Subhag Pandey, obtained a settlement of 27.33 acres of land from the ex-landlord of KVNDA Estate by a registered Kabuliyat dated 13th Asharh 1344 Fasli (06.07.1937). This created bhowli raiyati rights in his favour, and the disputed land formed part of this settlement.
After this settlement, Ram Subhag Pandey came into cultivating possession, paid rent to the ex-landlord, and was acknowledged as a settled raiyat when the outgoing landlord submitted returns after abolition of the Zamindari. Later, the heirs of Ram Subhag Pandey partitioned the land among themselves. The disputed plot and other lands fell to the shares of different heirs, including the petitioners’ predecessors.
The petitioners say that they and their predecessors remained in continuous cultivating possession, and also constructed residential and commercial structures on the land. After vesting, the State of Bihar recognized them as tenants by entering their names in Register-II, creating Jamabandi and issuing rent receipts.
Subsequently, several plots of Khata No.171, recorded in the CS Khatiyan as Gair Majarua Malik land, were acquired for strengthening and widening National Highway-2 (NH-2), connecting Aurangabad to Varanasi. The petitioners claim to be holders of some of these plots and therefore entitled to compensation for acquisition of their raiyati land.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners initially approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11588 of 2021. In paragraph 1 of their writ petition, they sought quashing of the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad.
By that order, the Deputy Collector had rejected the petitioners’ application for payment of compensation for acquisition of their raiyati land. He further directed the Anchal Adhikari, Barun, to start verification of the petitioners’ raiyati interest over lands which had already been acquired and accepted by the State Government. Title verification cases No. 1 to 8 of 2020-21 were started by the Anchal Adhikari, Barun, in pursuance of this order.
Later, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 01 of 2022 seeking to amend and expand their relief. Through this interlocutory application, they asked the Court to also quash:
First, the order dated 05/06.02.2021 passed jointly by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.) and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, in title verification case No. 1 to 10 of 2020-2021. In that order, on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, Barun, the authorities recommended that the raiyati claims of the petitioners be rejected and forwarded the recommendation to the Additional Collector, Aurangabad.
Second, the order dated 07.01.2022 passed in the same title verification cases (No. 1 to 10 of 2020-2021) by the Additional Collector and Collector, Aurangabad, whereby the earlier order of the L.R.D.C. and S.D.O. dated 05/06.02.2021 was confirmed.
The Court first considered I.A. No. 01 of 2022. It held that there were sufficient reasons, based on the information, grounds and affidavit in the interlocutory application, to allow amendment of the prayer. Thus, the petitioners were permitted to add the additional reliefs. I.A. No. 01 of 2022 was allowed.
Turning to the main writ petition, the Court heard submissions from both sides. The petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Senior Advocate, pointed out that in Mauza Barun, Khata No.171 is already recorded as Gair Majarua Malik land in the CS Khatiyan. Yet, persons like the petitioners have been settled over this land long back, are in possession and pay rent.
He further informed the Court that in respect of the same khata and same acquisition for NH-2, another aggrieved landholder had approached the Patna High Court earlier by filing CWJC No. 14096 of 2023. In that case, a Co-ordinate Bench, after noting that the petitioner there had been paying rent continuously and was in possession, set aside the order passed in the title verification case. That Bench gave liberty to the State to file a civil suit if it wanted to challenge the settlement in favour of the settlee’s predecessor.
In the present matter, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved by the series of orders passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad, and the Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad, all dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure-17 series). His main contention was that, if the authorities wanted to cancel or disturb the Jamabandi, they were bound to follow the prescribed procedure under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
According to the petitioners, without following the provisions of the 2011 Act, the authorities rejected their raiyati claim. They did so, the petitioners said, without properly applying the conditions laid down in Government Resolution No. 925 dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure-4). The Court reproduced clause 3(ii)(kha) of this Resolution, which in substance provides that where there is an old hukumnama or return prior to 01.01.1946, and the name of the raiyat appears and rent has been continuously paid, such person or their heirs shall be treated as raiyats.
The petitioners argued that they fall squarely within this clause. They had a registered Kabuliyat of 1937 in favour of their predecessor, rent was paid first to the landlord and then to the State, Jamabandi was created, and the Government kept issuing rent receipts. They claimed that all these documents were on record.
The Court observed that the authorities passed their orders without examining the evidence filed by the petitioners regarding continuous payment of rent fixed by the Government. This continuous payment, on its face, showed that the petitioners were in possession of their share of land till date.
After considering the submissions and records, the Court made a strong remark. It found that this was a case of clear “abrasion” on the part of the concerned authorities. The District Magistrate failed to abide by the provisions of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, and also ignored the conditions laid down in the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885.
The Court held that the order dated 14.01.2021 of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, and the subsequent orders dated 05/06.02.2021 and 07.01.2022 in title verification case No. 1 to 10 of 2020-2021 were not sustainable in the eye of law. All these orders, including the recommendations and the confirmation by higher revenue officers, were quashed and set aside.
The Court then indicated the next steps open to the petitioners. It observed that it was an admitted position that the Jamabandi standing in the petitioners’ names had not been cancelled till date in accordance with law. In such a situation, they could move the appropriate authority for “creation of their Jamabandi,” and, as a result, “the petitioners become entitled for payment of due compensation for the said piece of land for which they have not been paid till date.”
Finally, with these directions and findings, the Court disposed of the writ application.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for landholders whose lands, long held on the strength of old settlements and continuous rent payments, are later treated as if they belong to the Government without proper procedure.
The Patna High Court has clearly said that before disturbing Jamabandi or rejecting raiyati claims, authorities must follow the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and consider the protections given under the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 and relevant Government Resolutions.
For families facing land acquisition for projects like highways, this decision shows that if they have old settlement documents and rent receipts, the authorities cannot simply deny compensation without examining those records. If Jamabandi has not been cancelled legally, the State cannot ignore it when paying compensation.
The ruling also links with an earlier decision in CWJC No.14096 of 2023, where a similar title verification order was set aside with liberty to the State to file a civil suit. Together, they reinforce that questions about long-standing settlements and title should be decided through proper legal processes, not by unilateral administrative orders.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Could the revenue authorities, without following the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and without properly applying Resolution No. 925 of 11.11.2014 and the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, reject the petitioners’ raiyati claim over acquired land and thereby deny them compensation?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, the L.R.D.C., the S.D.O., and the Collector failed to follow the prescribed legal procedure and ignored relevant conditions. Their orders in the title verification cases and the initial rejection order dated 14.01.2021 were declared unsustainable and were quashed.
Issue: What remedy is available to raiyats whose Jamabandi has not been legally cancelled but whose claims have been rejected in title verification proceedings related to acquired land?
Answer: The Court clarified that such raiyats may apply to the appropriate authority for creation or affirmation of their Jamabandi and, in view of Jamabandi not having been cancelled in accordance with law, they become entitled to receive due compensation for the acquired land.
Cases Cited by the Court
The judgment records that, in respect of the same Khata No.171 and acquisition, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 14096 of 2023 had earlier set aside a similar title verification order and gave liberty to the State to file a suit challenging the settlement. No other reported case law citations are expressly mentioned in the text provided.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11588 of 2021
Case Title: Ram Naresh Pandey & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh
Date of Judgment: 13.01.2026
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 210
Advocates:
For the petitioners: Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate.
For the respondents/State: Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC 25.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging revenue orders in title verification cases and refusal of compensation for acquired land.
Link to Judgment: Click here to access the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
