Case Background
This case arose from a long-standing land dispute in Bishanpur, under Ashok Paper Mill Police Station, District Darbhanga. The petitioners claimed that they and their family had been peacefully cultivating and possessing the land for about one hundred years.
The disputed lands are recorded as Khata No.1080, Plot No.1439, Area 4 Bigha 5 Kattha 4 Dhur, Khata No.2624 (New) Area 1 Bigha, and Khata No.2623 (New) Area 5 Kattha, situated in Hayaghat Block, District Darbhanga.
The opposite parties, who also claim rights over the land, filed an application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Sadar, Darbhanga. They alleged that the petitioners had taken advantage of the fact that the opposite parties and their children were living away from the village and had allegedly occupied the land.
On this application, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was started. Notices were issued and the petitioners appeared through counsel. A report was called from the local police and a measurement (Amin) report was also prepared at the instance of the opposite parties.
Despite these steps, on 07.05.2024, the SDO converted the Section 144 proceeding into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C., attached the land under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., and appointed the Circle Officer, Hayaghat, as receiver of the land on the same day. This order effectively restrained the petitioners from cultivating the land that they claimed as their livelihood source.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Patna High Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.87921 of 2024, seeking quashing of the SDO’s order dated 07.05.2024.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh heard the matter on 11.09.2025. The central question was whether the SDO had legally and properly exercised his powers under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C., and whether the High Court should intervene despite an available remedy of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
The petitioners argued that they had been in peaceful possession of the land for generations and that their long-standing cultivation was supported by rent receipts. They produced rent receipts relating to Khata Nos.1097 and 1080 for Plot Nos.1439 and 1440, total area 4 acres 75.6 decimal 0 hectare, for three financial years from 2018 to 2022 (Annexure P/1).
They alleged that the SDO passed the impugned order mechanically and in haste, without granting real opportunity of hearing, without a proper physical inquiry, and without recording any material to show that there was an “emergency” situation justifying attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.
The petitioners further contended that the SDO failed to discuss or analyse the evidence produced by the opposite parties. In contrast, their own rent receipts and the Amin report allegedly showed their possession over the land, yet these were not properly considered.
To support their legal challenge, the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 3 SCC 366. In that decision, the Supreme Court clarified that:
- Fulfilling the ingredients for Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. does not automatically justify attachment of the property under Section 146 Cr.P.C.
- Before attaching property under Section 146, the Magistrate must be satisfied that a genuine “emergency” exists, which is more than a mere apprehension of breach of peace.
- The Magistrate must explain in the order why he considers the situation to be an emergency, based on materials like submissions of parties, documents, and evidence.
The petitioners argued that the SDO’s order did not record any such emergency, nor any reasons, and was therefore contrary to the law laid down in Ashok Kumar.
On the other side, the State, through the learned APP, argued that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable because the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the District Court. It was also submitted that the extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should be used sparingly and only in extreme cases, and the petitioners had not explained why they had bypassed the revision remedy.
The Court carefully examined the contents of the original Section 144 Cr.P.C. petition filed by the opposite parties, as well as the reports on record. It noted that, according to the opposite parties, they and their children stayed outside the village and the petitioners allegedly took advantage of their absence to occupy the land. It was also reported that when the opposite parties tried to cultivate the land, the petitioners allegedly formed an unlawful assembly with miscreants and prevented them.
However, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ashok Paper Mill Police Station, submitted a report indicating that the petitioners were in possession of the land. The report mentioned that the petitioners had produced rent receipts. The Amin report, prepared on the application of opposite party nos.4, 5 and 6 for measurement, also showed the possession of the petitioners.
The Court observed that the petition filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. by the opposite parties did not contain any description or information showing that they had paid any rent or possessed rent receipts to support their claim over the disputed land. At the same time, the impugned order of the SDO did not record any evidence produced by the opposite parties to support their claims.
On these facts, the Court found that the petitioners had clearly established their possession through rent receipts and the Amin report. Despite this, the SDO initiated and continued proceedings under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C., attached the land, and appointed a receiver without discussing why such drastic action was necessary.
The Court held that the SDO had exercised his jurisdiction in a “most malafide manner” and appeared to have proceeded “under influence.” It noted that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar supported the petitioners’ case.
Quoting paragraphs 13 to 16 of the Ashok Kumar judgment in detail, the Court emphasized that:
- An order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. does not by itself justify attachment under Section 146 Cr.P.C.
- The Magistrate must record why he considers the situation to be an “emergency.”
- When reports show that one party is in possession, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate cannot attach the property on the mere ground of apprehension of breach of peace.
After considering the law and the materials on record, the Court concluded that no ground existed for the SDO to attach the property under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. in the present case.
Although the State had raised the objection of alternative remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Court, in substance, proceeded to examine the merits. It also referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions (such as Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749; G. Sagar Suri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) 2 SCC 636; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) on the cautious exercise of criminal jurisdiction. These references underline that higher courts can interfere where lower authorities act without jurisdiction or in clear abuse of process.
Ultimately, the Patna High Court set aside and quashed the SDO’s order dated 07.05.2024. With this, the attachment of the land and appointment of the Circle Officer, Hayaghat, as receiver stood cancelled, and the quashing application was disposed of.
Before closing, the Court issued a strong caution to the revenue authorities. It observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Circle Officer must refrain from acting in an arbitrary or high-handed manner. It directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, to remain vigilant and ensure that officials under his jurisdiction do not oppress ordinary citizens through malicious proceedings.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for farmers and landholders in Bihar and beyond who are often dragged into preventive proceedings under Sections 144, 145, and 146 Cr.P.C. in village land disputes.
The Patna High Court made it clear that:
- Authorities cannot casually attach land and appoint receivers without clear, recorded reasons and evidence of an actual emergency.
- Possession supported by rent receipts and official reports cannot be ignored without discussion.
- Preventive powers must not be misused to dispossess people or force them into unnecessary litigation.
The judgment also sends a strong message to revenue officers and local administration: they must act fairly and within law, not in an arbitrary or “influenced” manner. The direction to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, to ensure that ordinary citizens are not oppressed by malicious prosecution adds an additional layer of accountability.
For lay persons, the takeaway is that if land is attached or taken over under the cover of Sections 145–146 Cr.P.C. without proper grounds, such orders can be challenged, including before the Patna High Court, especially when strong documents like rent receipts and official reports support their possession.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga, was justified in converting a Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding into Section 145 Cr.P.C. and attaching the petitioners’ land under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., appointing the Circle Officer as receiver, without recording reasons of emergency or properly considering evidence of possession.
Answer: The Patna High Court held that the SDO acted in a malafide and arbitrary manner, without satisfying the legal requirements of Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and ignoring material showing the petitioners’ possession. The order dated 07.05.2024 was therefore quashed. - Issue: Whether the availability of an alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. barred the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in this case.
Answer: Although the State raised this objection, the Court proceeded to examine the legality of the SDO’s order and quashed it, implicitly recognizing that in cases of clear abuse of power and miscarriage of justice, the High Court can intervene notwithstanding the alternative remedy.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 3 SCC 366 – relied upon for the scope of Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., especially the requirement of “emergency” for attachment.
- Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors, (1998) 5 SCC 749 – referred to regarding the cautious exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
- G. Sagar Suri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) 2 SCC 636 – cited for the principle that criminal courts must exercise great caution before issuing process.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – referred to for the circumstances in which higher courts can interfere to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No.87921 of 2024 (arising out of PS Case No.-, Year-0, Thana – Ashok Paper Mill, District – Darbhanga)
Case Title: Kamlakant Choudhary & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh
Citation: 2025 (4) PLJR 425
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Advocate; Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Padmanabh Kashyap, Advocate; Md. Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate
- For the State/Opposite Parties: Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP
Nature of the Case: Criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (quashing application) challenging an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer converting Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceedings into Section 145 Cr.P.C., attaching land under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., and appointing a receiver.
Date of Judgment: 11.09.2025
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the official 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.
