Case Background
The petitioner is a proposed purchaser of a piece of land situated in Khata No. 76, Plot No. 14, Thana No. 320, village Bhadeja, Anchal Manpur, District Gaya.
According to the case set up by the petitioner, the land had been recorded as “Bakast Malik” and was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of one Bibi Batulan, mother of Md. Shakir, in the year 1938–39.
After abolition of the zamindari system, the ex-landlord submitted return Jamabandi in Compensation Case No. 105/13 of 1953–54. A demand register was opened in the name of Bibi Batulan.
During revisional survey operations, the heirs of the ex-landlord got their names recorded in respect of the entire land, including the portion said to have been settled with Bibi Batulan. A proceeding under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act was therefore initiated as Title Suit No. 431 of 1980 at the instance of Bibi Batulan. That suit was decided in her favour, holding the revisional survey entry to be incorrect so far as it related to the land settled with her.
On the death of Bibi Batulan, her son, Md. Shakir, came into possession of the land in question and was paying rent.
In 2005, a dispute arose when the Forest Department interfered with the land for plantation purposes. A proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started. The Forest Department claimed the land as forest land on the basis of notifications published in the official gazette in 1948 and 1952–53, declaring it to be protected forest.
Thereafter, Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005) was filed by Md. Shakir seeking declaration of title and possession over the disputed land.
During the pendency of that suit, he moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession.
The trial court allowed the injunction application on 06.06.2006, restraining the defendants from entering upon the suit land and disturbing the plaintiff’s possession during the pendency of the suit.
The defendants filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 2006/14 of 2006 before the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed on 22.02.2007.
Aggrieved, the defendants approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 9610 of 2010. That writ petition was dismissed by order dated 16.04.2014. The High Court directed the trial court to take steps for expeditious disposal of the title suit, preferably within nine months from receipt or production of the order.
While the title suit was still pending, a series of transactions took place. On 24.03.2011, Md. Shakir executed a registered sale deed in favour of Punam Sharma. The suit land was mutated in her name and rent receipts were issued to her.
On 05.12.2016, Punam Sharma executed Sale Deed No. 17369 in favour of Sachidanand Singh and three others. Thereafter, these purchasers transferred the land to the present petitioner, Nilu Kumari.
On 16.06.2020, the petitioner, along with the intended vendor, presented the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Gaya, for registration. The document was not entertained.
Later, by letter no. 5050 dated 26.12.2020, the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya, requested the registering authorities not to register any sale documents pertaining to the subject land, stating that it was forest land. The District Magistrate was also requested to cancel the demand opened in respect of the land, allegedly created by local persons on the basis of fake documents or Hukumnama.
Aggrieved by this communication, Md. Shakir filed CWJC No. 6933 of 2021. The Patna High Court disposed of that writ on 30.01.2023. It directed him to file a detailed representation before the District Magistrate-cum-Registrar, Gaya. The Court also gave liberty to him to approach the trial court by filing an appropriate application if he intended to sell the land.
On his representation, the District Magistrate, Gaya, passed order no. 109 dated 22.07.2023. He decided not to pass any order or decree till disposal of the pending title suit and directed that the restriction on the registering authority would continue regarding the land in question.
This order was initially challenged by Md. Shakir in CWJC No. 13507 of 2023. That writ was disposed of as not pressed on 03.10.2023. Liberty was granted to him to pursue the appropriate remedy before the civil court in the pending Title Suit No. 29 of 2005/307 of 2005.
Instead of approaching the civil court, the present petitioner approached the Patna High Court by filing CWJC No. 2070 of 2024. She sought quashing of the same order no. 109 dated 22.07.2023 of the Collector-cum-District Registrar, Gaya, and a direction to register the land in her favour.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The core question before the Patna High Court was whether it should, in writ jurisdiction, direct the registering authority to register a sale deed for a piece of land which is already the subject of several title suits and is also claimed to be protected forest.
The petitioner argued that the Collector-cum-District Registrar, Gaya, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order refusing to permit sale, purchase or registration of the land.
She submitted that, because of this order, the Sub-Registrar, Gaya, was refusing to entertain any sale or transfer document relating to the land, which was contrary to law.
According to the petitioner, the registering authority cannot refuse registration on such grounds. She relied on Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, to argue that the authority cannot adjudicate upon or examine the title of the property at the stage of registration.
She further contended that the land is “Bakast Malik” and not “Gair Mazarua Aam”, and that her predecessor-in-interest, Md. Shakir, had been in possession since 1938.
The petitioner pointed out that the High Court’s order dated 16.04.2014 in CWJC No. 9610 of 2010 (connected with the earlier injunction proceedings) had never been challenged by the Forest Department and therefore had attained finality.
Despite this, according to her, the Forest Department was still interfering by issuing executive letters. The Circle Officer, Manpur, had given a report that the land in question was not forest land, but the Collector ignored this report while passing the impugned order.
She also highlighted that, although the High Court had directed expeditious disposal of the title suit, it remained pending for years without effective adjudication.
On the legal side, she relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 129 of 2021 (Kumar Gaurav vs The State of Bihar) to support her stand on the powers of the registering authorities.
The State and Forest Department opposed the writ petition. They argued that the writ was misconceived and not maintainable.
They pointed out that the land is admittedly the subject matter of Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005), pending before the competent civil court at Gaya. In addition to this suit, three other title suits have also been filed regarding the same land.
According to the respondents, this multiplicity of proceedings shows that there is no clear or undisputed title in favour of the petitioner or her predecessor-in-interest.
They submitted that serious and complex questions related to title, nature of the land and applicability of forest laws are involved. Rent receipts allegedly issued in favour of the mother of Md. Shakir were, in their case, granted without lawful mutation or inquiry into the nature of the land, and in disregard of express government instructions that prohibited rent receipts for notified or demarcated forest land.
The respondents alleged that the entire claim of the petitioner rests on forged, fabricated and manufactured documents, including the Hukumnama, zamindari rent receipts and Cess Revaluation Return. In their version, these documents were created for the purpose of usurping demarcated forest land.
The respondents further submitted that neither the petitioner nor her predecessor-in-interest was ever in actual physical possession of the disputed land. They alleged that, under the cover of the interim injunction obtained under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, attempts were made to encroach upon notified forest land.
According to the State, all transfers executed without valid title or possession are void and non-existent in law. None of the purported purchasers were actually in possession. They argued that such transactions were done only to create artificial third-party interests in forest land, and the petitioner did not deserve any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The respondents also submitted that there had been no violation of any injunction order or contempt of any direction of the Court. In CWJC No. 6933 of 2021, liberty was given to approach the competent civil court for permission in case of any proposed alienation. In the absence of any declaration of title or permission from the civil court, they were justified in maintaining status quo.
Finally, they argued that the Forest Department’s claim is based on statutory notifications under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, further supported by the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and directions of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. Rent receipts or an unregistered Hukumnama, they argued, cannot override statutory forest notifications.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court examined the nature of the dispute.
The Court noted that the land is clearly disputed. On one side, the petitioner claims through her predecessor-in-interest that the land was settled by the ex-landlord through a Hukumnama and that her predecessor had been in peaceful possession. On the other side, the State claims that the land was notified as protected forest in 1948 and 1953, and also alleges that the petitioner’s documents are forged and fabricated.
The Court further recorded that Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005) filed by the petitioner’s predecessor is pending, and three other title suits relating to the same land are also pending.
In the Court’s view, this multiplicity of proceedings shows that there is no clear, settled or undisputed title in favour of the petitioner or her predecessor-in-interest.
The Court held that complex questions of title, as well as questions of law relating to protected forest, are involved. In such a situation, if the High Court were to direct the registering authority to register the disputed land, it would further complicate the situation.
The Court reminded that, in earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, liberty had already been given to seek permission from the competent civil court in the pending title suit for sale of the disputed property.
In this background, the Court held that interference under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction during pendency of the title suits was not warranted.
The Court concluded that, because of the complex questions of title and the rival claims of the petitioner and the Forest Department, it could not direct the registering authority to register the land in favour of the petitioner.
The Division Bench judgment relied upon by the petitioner was held to be not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, the Court held that no positive direction could be issued to the registering authority for registration of the subject land and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for buyers and sellers dealing with land that is already under serious dispute or claimed as forest land.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that when there are complex questions of title, and several civil suits are already pending, the High Court will not, in writ jurisdiction, force the registration office to register sale deeds.
Instead, parties must first get their title decided by the civil court. Until then, even a proposed purchaser cannot insist that the Sub-Registrar register the document for such a disputed plot.
This judgment also shows that where land is claimed as protected forest on the strength of official notifications, rent receipts or alleged old settlements cannot automatically override those claims in a summary writ proceeding.
For ordinary citizens, the practical message is that before purchasing land, especially near forest areas, it is important to check whether any title suit or forest notification exists. If disputes already exist, registration may be blocked until courts decide the matter.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can the Patna High Court, in writ jurisdiction, direct the registering authority to register a sale deed for land where title is seriously disputed and multiple title suits are pending, including claims that it is protected forest land?
Answer: No. The Court held that because complex and serious questions of title and the nature of the land as protected forest are involved, and several civil suits are pending, it cannot issue a positive direction to the registering authority to register the land.
Issue: Does the Collector-cum-District Registrar’s order maintaining restrictions on registration during pendency of the title suit suffer from lack of jurisdiction so as to be quashed in writ proceedings?
Answer: The Court declined to quash the order, holding that in the circumstances of disputed title and forest claims, the writ petition was devoid of merit and no interference was called for.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The respondents referred to directions of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India in support of forest protection.
- The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 129 of 2021 (Kumar Gaurav vs The State of Bihar), which the Court held not applicable to the present facts.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2070 of 2024
Case Title: Nilu Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 346
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Date of Judgment: 25-03-2026
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Mujtabul Haque, Government Pleader (12); Mr. Pranoy Kumar, AC to GP 12
Nature of the Case: Writ petition seeking quashing of order of Collector-cum-District Registrar refusing to permit sale/registration of disputed land and seeking direction to register sale deed.
Impugned Order: Order No. 109 dated 22.07.2023 passed by the Collector-cum-District Registrar, Gaya.
Result: Writ petition dismissed; no direction issued to registering authority.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
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.
