Patna High Court
Ranjan Kumar Ratnakar vs The State Of Bihar on 11 March, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.32 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14520 of 2016
======================================================
Ranjan Kumar Ratnakar Son of Sri Sahdeo Prasad, Resident of Village-
Bhadasi, Police Station and District Arwal, formerly posted on the Post of
Programme officer in Rangra Chowk Prakhand, P.S. Rangra Chowk, District-
Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur.
4. The Director, Accounts, District Rural Development Agency, Bhagalpur.
5. Sri Sanjeev Kumar, the then Senior Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur, in-Charge
Rangra Chowk Prakhand.
6. Smt. Bandana Kumari, District Certificate Officer, Bhagalpur.
7. The Block Development Officer, Rangra Chowk Block, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Kaushal Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Additional Advocate General (4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 11-03-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellant-Ranjan Kumar Ratnakar challenging the order dated
16.12.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.
14520 of 2016.
2. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition was filed
for quashing the entire certificate proceedings in Certificate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.32 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
2/4
Case No. 4 of 2013-14 initiated under Section 4 of the Bihar
and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, including the
ex parte order dated 20.07.2016 directing the petitioner to
deposit the certificate amount of Rs. 2,09,166/- within one
month, and further directing that steps be taken for recovery of
the said amount.
3. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has
been pleased to hold that the petitioner had not preferred an
appeal provided under Section 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public
Demands Recovery Act, 1914, which enables an aggrieved party
to file an appeal against an order passed under Section 10 of the
said Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal. It was further
directed that, in the event of any delay in filing the appeal, the
petitioner may file the same along with limitation petition,
which shall be considered by the authority while adjudicating
the matter.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not
dispute that there is a provision for appeal against the impugned
order, but submits that the very inception of the case is without
jurisdiction. Therefore, even though an alternative remedy of
appeal is available to the petitioner, the writ petition can still be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.32 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
3/4
entertained.
5. We are not in a position to accept such submission of
learned counsel for the appellant.
6. For the sake of brevity and clarity, Section 10 and 60
of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914,
has been quoted hereinbelow:-
“10.Hearing and determining of such petition.
The Certificate Officer in whose office the original
certificate is filed shall hear the petition, take
evidence (it necessary) and determine whether the
certificate-debtor is liable for the whole or any part
of the amount for which the certificate was signed;
and may set aside, modify or vary the certificate
accordingly:
Provided that if the Certificate Officer is not the
Collector, and considers that the petition involves a
bonafide claim of right to property, he shall refer the
petition to the Collector for orders, and the
Collector, if he is satisfied that a bonafide claim or
right of property is involved, shall make an order
cancelling the certificate.
60. Appeal.-(1) An appeal from any original order
made under this Act shall lie –
(a) if the order was made by an Assistant Collector
or a Deputy Collector, or by a Certificate Officer
not being the Collector – to the Collector;
or (b) if the order was made by the Collector – to the
Commissioner:
Provided that no appeal shall lie from any order
setting aside a sale on an application made under
Section 28:
[Provided further that no appeal against an order
passed under Section 10 shall be entertained unless
the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant
has paid forty percent of the amount determined
under that Section or such amount as the appellant
admits to be due from him, whichever is greater.
(2) Every such appeal must be presented, in case
(a), within fifteen days, or in case (b) within thirty
Patna High Court L.P.A No.32 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
4/4days, from the date of the order.
(3) The Collector may, by order, with the previous
sanction of the Commissioner, authorise –
(i) any Sub-divisional Officer;or
(ii) any officer appointed under clause (3) of
Section 3 to perform the functions of a Certificate
Officer; to exercise the appellate powers of the
Collector under sub-section (1).
(4) When any officer has been so authorized, the
Collector may transfer to him for hearing any
appeal referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1),
unless the order appealed against was made by such
officer.
(5) Pending the decision of any appeal, execution
may be stayed if the appellate authority so directs,
but not otherwise.”
7. In view of specific provision available under Section
10 and 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery
Act, 1914, we find that there is no perversity in the order of the
learned Single Judge so as to be interferred in this L.P.A.
8. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 12.03.2026 Transmission Date NA
