Case Background
The matter arises from Civil Review No. 125 of 2023 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5610 of 2023 before the Patna High Court.
The original writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner described himself as a farmer and social activist from Rohtas district. He challenged obstruction of a road said to be used by local residents and by an educational institution at Kochas, Rohtas.
The land in question is Plot No. 1506, Khata No. 93, Thana No. 285 at Mauza Kochas, situated near the Sasaram–Buxar State Highway. According to the writ petition, in 2002 the State of Bihar, through the Road Construction Department, acquired part of Plot No. 1506 on the eastern side of the highway. The remaining part of the plot was sold by the original owner to private individuals, who constructed residential houses.
The petitioner himself pleaded that on a part of Plot No. 1506, a private residential school was established and ran successfully. The plot owners allegedly developed a nine feet wide road on Plot No. 1506 to connect their locality to the Sasaram–Buxar highway.
The petitioner further claimed that in 2008 “the respondents” tried to block this eight or nine feet wide road by constructing a gate and boundary wall, against which the residents protested. However, the writ petition did not name any private party as a respondent. It only contained a vague statement that “the respondents” tried to block the road, without identifying who exactly did so.
The petitioner stated that in 2008 the Circle Inspector, Kochas, submitted a report recommending that the eight feet wide road on Plot No. 1506 should be allowed to exist so that the general public and the students and teachers of the school could access the main road. The Circle Officer, Kochas (arrayed as respondent no. 4), agreed with this report and wrote to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sasaram (respondent no. 3).
What happened after these 2008 communications was not stated in the writ petition. The petitioner later asserted that the residential school was replaced by an Industrial Training Institute on the same land in 2015. He claimed to raise the grievance on behalf of students and other stakeholders of this institute. Yet, the institute itself, its students, or residents of the locality were not petitioners, nor was any of them shown to have approached any authority or court.
On these facts, the Division Bench, by judgment dated 21.04.2023 in CWJC No. 5610 of 2023, dismissed the PIL and directed the petitioner to avail appropriate statutory remedies instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
The petitioner then filed Civil Review No. 125 of 2023, challenging that dismissal and alleging an “error of record” in the Division Bench judgment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The review application was heard by a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey. The oral judgment was delivered on 25.11.2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad.
The Court first recalled what had been decided earlier in the writ petition. The earlier Division Bench had noted that the petitioner relied on a report dated 01.03.2008 from the Circle Inspector to the Circle Officer, and on a communication from the Circle Officer to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, also of 2008. On the basis of those old communications, the petitioner filed a PIL in 2023.
The earlier Bench observed that there was “shocking delay” in approaching the Court, because the material documents were 15 years old and might have little relevance to the current situation on the ground. The Court held that even if the 2008 report and communication were accepted as correct, they were of no present significance. Instead, it directed the petitioner to use remedies provided under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and other available legal routes, such as Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and civil remedies.
In the review, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Division Bench had committed an error of record. According to him, the earlier Bench appeared to believe that the cause of action arose in 2008 and that the petitioner had approached the Court after a delay of 15 years. On this alleged misunderstanding, the petitioner sought review of the 21.04.2023 judgment.
The State, represented by learned AC to AAG-12, opposed the review. It was submitted that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The State argued that the earlier Division Bench had never held that the petitioner’s cause of action arose in 2008; it only referred to the age of the communications relied upon. The judgment itself could not be treated as giving rise to any cause of action.
The State further pointed out that the PIL was essentially being used to assert a right of way over private land. The petitioner claimed to be a social activist, but there was no material about the nature of his activism or any public benefit achieved by him. According to the State, the litigation appeared frivolous and vexatious, allegedly aimed at obtaining an ex parte order against a person who was not even made a party to the writ petition.
After hearing both sides, the Court examined the records of the original writ petition. It highlighted some key features of the pleadings:
First, there was no averment that the portion of Plot No. 1506 where the residential school or Industrial Training Institute stood was public land. On the contrary, the petitioner’s own pleadings showed that part of the plot had been acquired by the State earlier, while the remaining portion was raiyati (private) land sold to individuals.
Second, there was no statement that this raiyati land had been encroached upon. The only assertion was that an access road had been developed on a portion of Plot No. 1506 and that someone tried to block it in 2008 by putting up a gate and boundary wall. There was no specific allegation that public land had been encroached by any person.
Third, the very persons who would be directly affected by any obstruction—the Industrial Training Institute, its teachers, staff, students, or local residents—had not themselves approached the Court or any competent authority. The petitioner alone, describing himself as a social worker, had “taken the cudgels” to raise the issue.
On these facts, the Court concluded that the dispute, if any, was about a right of way over private, raiyati land. The Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 applies to public lands; the writ petition had not even pleaded that the land was public. The absence of a clear statement about the status of the land was fatal to the PIL.
Turning to the alleged error of record, the Bench expressly rejected the petitioner’s contention. It noted that counsel could not point to any part of the writ petition explaining what had happened between 2008 and 2023 regarding the land. Nor could he show any pleading that the land was public in nature.
The Court stated that there was, therefore, no error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment. The earlier Division Bench’s reference to “shocking delay” was based on the age of the documents being relied upon, not on any finding about the date of cause of action. The review ground was found unsustainable.
The Bench observed that filing such frivolous and vexatious review litigation, and insisting that the earlier order suffered from an error of record without any basis in the pleadings, had only wasted the Court’s precious time.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the review application. To mark its disapproval and to deter similar misuse of Public Interest Litigation and review jurisdiction, it imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner.
The Court directed that this amount must be paid within one month from the date of the order. The petitioner is required to deposit the cost with the Patna High Court Legal Service Committee and furnish the receipt to the Court. The Bench further ordered that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, the cost shall be realized from him in accordance with law.
With these directions, the Civil Review No. 125 of 2023 was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for anyone thinking of filing a Public Interest Litigation, especially about local land or road disputes.
First, the Patna High Court makes it clear that a PIL cannot be used to settle what is essentially a private dispute over a right of way on raiyati land. If the land is not shown to be public, and if those directly affected do not themselves come forward, the Court will not entertain such petitions.
Second, the Court stresses that review is an extraordinary remedy. It will not be allowed merely because the losing party disagrees with the earlier reasoning. There must be a clear and obvious error on the face of the record, which the petitioner in this case could not show.
Third, the decision shows that the Court is willing to impose monetary costs when it finds litigation to be frivolous and a waste of judicial time. The direction to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Legal Services Committee is a reminder that misuse of PIL and review can have financial consequences.
Finally, the judgment underlines that where statutory remedies are available—such as under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, Section 133 Cr.P.C., or civil suits—parties should use those routes instead of rushing to file PILs in the High Court.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Did the earlier Division Bench judgment dated 21.04.2023 in CWJC No. 5610 of 2023 suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review?
Answer: No. The Court held that there was no error of record. The petitioner failed to show any pleading supporting his claim that the land was public or that the Court misunderstood the cause of action. The review application was dismissed with costs. - Issue: Can a Public Interest Litigation be used to establish a right of way over raiyati land when affected parties have not approached the Court?
Answer: No, not in the manner attempted here. The Court noted that the dispute was clearly over private raiyati land, with no averment of encroachment on public land, and the directly affected institute and individuals had never raised any grievance before competent authorities or courts. - Issue: What is the consequence of filing frivolous and vexatious review litigation in the Patna High Court?
Answer: The Court may dismiss the application with costs, as in this case where Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the petitioner to be deposited with the Patna High Court Legal Service Committee.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not record any cited or relied-on precedents. No prior case law has been mentioned.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Review No. 125 of 2023 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5610 of 2023
Case Title: Kamlesh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey
Date of Judgment: 25.11.2025
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 102
Advocates: For the petitioner – Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jay Prakash Singh, Advocate; For the State – Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG-12
Opposite Parties: State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram; District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram; Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sasaram; Circle Officer, Kochas, Rohtas; Additional Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna; Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Kochas, District Rohtas
Nature of the Case: Civil review application against dismissal of Public Interest Litigation (writ petition) concerning alleged obstruction of access road
Link to Full Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in Civil Review No. 125 of 2023
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.
