Case Background
The writ petition was filed by a woman landowner from Nawada district. Her land is situated at Mauza Gonawa, Thana No. 367, District Nawada, under Khata Nos. 346 and 88 and Khesra Nos. 3192 and 3193, measuring six decimals.
This plot had been sealed by the authorities, and confiscation proceedings were started as Confiscation Case No. 35 of 2025. The action followed registration of Nawada Excise P.S. Case No. 873 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 under Sections 30(a) and 44 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
In that criminal case, two persons, Ranjit Kumar and Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu, were named as accused. The FIR alleged recovery of 1.500 litres of illicit foreign liquor from their possession and another 2.625 litres from a sack hidden in garbage lying on the petitioner’s land.
The petitioner herself was not named as an accused. She resides at Hospital Road, Nawada, away from the disputed land. She approached the Patna High Court seeking two main reliefs: first, de‑sealing and release of her land; and second, quashing of Confiscation Case No. 35 of 2025 initiated in respect of that land.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey heard the matter. The oral judgment was delivered on 09.02.2026.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that she and her family members had not been made accused in Nawada Excise P.S. Case No. 873 of 2024. According to her, she had no connection or relationship with the two accused persons.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the land in question undisputedly belongs to her. It is surrounded by a boundary wall, but according to her, neighbours from adjacent houses routinely throw their garbage inside this land.
It was emphasised that only 2.625 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from a sack hidden in the garbage lying on the land. The liquor from that sack was already attributed to Ranjit Kumar and Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu in the FIR. They were, as per the petitioner, complete strangers to her.
Based on this, the petitioner requested that the sealed land be released in her favour and the confiscation proceedings be quashed.
On the other hand, the State defended its action. The State’s counsel submitted that a raid had been conducted pursuant to confidential information. During that raid, Ranjit Kumar and Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu were apprehended with 1.500 litres of illicit foreign liquor in their possession.
After their disclosure, the police recovered another 2.625 litres of illicit liquor from a sack hidden in garbage lying in the petitioner’s land. On this basis, the authorities sealed the land and initiated Confiscation Case No. 35 of 2025.
The State further argued that the petitioner had not yet moved an application under Rule 12B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022 for release of the premises upon payment of penalty. It was stated that as and when such an application is filed, it would be considered appropriately.
However, when the Bench asked the State’s counsel whether any proof of connivance or direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner had been brought on record in the counter affidavit, the answer was negative. No such material was produced before the Court.
The Court then examined the statutory framework. It noted that the case arose under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, particularly Sections 30(a), 56, 57B and 58, and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022, especially Rules 12B and 13B.
Section 30 of the Act prescribes punishment for unlawful manufacture, import, export, transport, possession, sale, purchase or distribution of liquor or intoxicants in violation of the Act or licence conditions. Section 56 deals with confiscation of seized items, including premises. Section 57B permits release of premises or conveyances used for committing offences upon payment of penalty. Section 58 empowers the District Collector to order confiscation, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and upon satisfaction that an offence under the Act has been committed.
Rule 12B provides for release of seized or sealed premises on payment of penalty upon an application by the owner in Form V. It also directs the Collector to consider the owner’s economic status, nature of involvement in the crime, location of the premises and quantum of intoxicant recovered while deciding penalty, and makes clear that the fine shall not be less than one lakh rupees.
Rule 13B lays down the procedure for confiscation of premises if the premises is not to be released on penalty or the owner does not pay the penalty. It requires issuing show-cause notice to the owner, giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, and passing an order within 90 days from the date of seizure or sealing, based on satisfaction about commission of an offence.
After reproducing these provisions, the Court drew out their combined effect. It held that under the Act and Rules, a premises or part thereof can indeed be seized or confiscated if used for committing an offence. However, before confiscation or even imposing penalty for release, the competent authority must be satisfied that an offence has been committed in terms of the Act, and must consider the nature of the owner’s involvement and other factors.
The Bench clearly observed that “direct involvement or connivance of the owner of the premises in question in illegal use of such premises for stacking illicit liquor is an essential prerequisite” for seizure and confiscation of the premises or for imposing any penalty for its release.
Applying this legal requirement to the facts, the Court noted that the petitioner was not an accused in the criminal case. There was no recovery of illicit foreign liquor from her personal possession. Further, the State had not produced any material in its counter affidavit showing her involvement or connivance in the alleged offence.
The Court also found no proof that the petitioner had any connection with the accused persons, or that she played any role, directly or indirectly, in illegally using the premises for storing liquor.
On this basis, the Bench concluded that the State authorities’ action in sealing the premises and initiating confiscation proceedings was arbitrary. It was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before law, because the action lacked a reasonable basis linked to the petitioner’s conduct.
The Court further held that sealing and moving to confiscate the property without establishing the owner’s involvement also violated Article 300A of the Constitution. Article 300A protects a person’s right to property and states that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. The Bench held that, in the facts of this case, the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 did not authorise such seizure and confiscation of the petitioner’s premises.
Therefore, the seizure and confiscation proceedings were held to be without authority of law.
The Court accordingly set aside Confiscation Case No. 35 of 2025 pending before the Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Nawada. It directed that the sealed premises be de‑sealed and released in favour of the petitioner.
This release, however, is to be carried out after the State authorities are satisfied about the petitioner’s ownership of the premises. The Court fixed a timeline of two weeks from receipt or production of a copy of the judgment for completing de‑sealing and release.
With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for property owners in Bihar, especially those whose houses or lands are targeted during prohibition raids.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that the State cannot seal or confiscate a property merely because liquor was found there. Authorities must show some material indicating the property owner’s involvement or connivance in using the premises for liquor-related offences.
For ordinary citizens, this means that if liquor is found on or near their property without their knowledge or role, especially when they are not accused in the criminal case, they can challenge sealing and confiscation orders.
The judgment also reminds officers that their powers under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and the related Rules must be exercised in line with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 300A. Confiscation is a serious step, and it cannot be used mechanically or as a default reaction to every seizure.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the State lawfully seal and initiate confiscation of a premises under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 when there is no material showing the owner’s involvement or connivance in storing illicit liquor?
Answer: No. The Court held that direct or indirect involvement or connivance of the owner in illegal use of the premises is an essential prerequisite. In the absence of such material, sealing and confiscation proceedings are arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution, and without authority of law.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely on any other reported case law.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16759 of 2025
Case Title: Dayamanti Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 640
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
Advocates: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to GP-5 for the State
Nature of the Case: Writ petition seeking de‑sealing and release of land and quashing of confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
Date of Judgment: 09.02.2026
Confiscation Proceeding Challenged: Confiscation Case No. 35 of 2025 pending before the Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Nawada
Link to Judgment: Click here to read 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.
