Patna High Court – Orders
Kamakhya Narayan Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2026
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10133 of 2026
======================================================
1. Kamakhya Narayan Mishra Son of Late Rama Shankar Mishra, Resident of
Village Agahra. P.O. Gaura, P.S. Gaura. District Saran, Bihar- 841443.
2. Govind Jee Mishra, Son of Late Rama Shankar Mishra, Resident of Village
Agahra. PO. Gaura, P.S. Gaura. District Saran, Bihar-841443.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Saran at Chapra, District-Saran.
3. The Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra, District- Saran.
4. The Circle Officer, Marhaura, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (08)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 14-07-2026
Heard Ms. Shruti Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notice
dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P/6) issued by the
Respondent No.4, namely the Additional Collector,
Saran at Chapra, in Jamabandi Cancellation Case
No.763 of 2025-26, whereby proceedings for
cancellation of the petitioners’ long-standing
Jamabandi in respect of land appertaining to Khata
No.245, Plot Nos.2643 and 2767, situated at
Patna High Court CWJC No.10133 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
2/9Mauza-Aghara, Pargana-Goa, Thana No.27,
Circle-Marhaura, District-Saran, have been
initiated and the petitioners have been directed to
appear on 09.10.2025 along with their objections
and supporting documents,
(ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of Certiorari for quashing the very
initiation of Jamabandi Cancellation Proceeding
being Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.763 of
2025-26, as the same has been initiated without
recording the jurisdictional satisfaction
contemplated under Section 9 of the Bihar Land
Mutation Act, 2011, without disclosing any material
to indicate that the petitioners’ Jamabandi had
been created in violation of any law or executive
instruction and, therefore, the assumption of
jurisdiction itself is illegal and unsustainable in
law.
(iii) for issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction declaring that the impugned
notice dated 20.09.2025 and the entire proceedings
of Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.763 of 2025-
26 are arbitrary, illegal, non-speaking, without
Patna High Court CWJC No.10133 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
3/9
jurisdiction, violative of the provisions of the Bihar
Land Mutation Act, 2011 as well as Articles 14, 21
and 300A of the Constitution of India.
(iv) for issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of Prohibition, prohibiting the
respondent authorities from proceeding further with
Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.763 of 2025-26
or initiating any action for cancellation of the
petitioners’ long-standing Jamabandi under the
provisions of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011,
unless and until the State Government obtains an
appropriate declaration of title from a competent
Civil Court in respect of the land in question, over
which the petitioners have been in long-standing
possession supported by historical Jamabandi and
revenue records.
(v) for issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction declaring that the dispute sought
to be raised by the respondents pertains to disputed
questions of title arising out of an old settlement,
long-standing Jamabandi and historical revenue
records, which cannot be adjudicated in summary
proceedings under Section 9 of the Bihar Land
Patna High Court CWJC No.10133 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
4/9
Mutation Act, 2011, and that the appropriate
remedy, if any, lies before the competent Civil
Court.
(vi) for issuance of any other writ, order,
direction or relief/reliefs to which the petitioners
may be found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”
3. The petitioner claims to own a piece of land details
of which is/are incorporated in the prayer portion itself and
needs no repetition.
4. With the help of different rent receipts, the claim is
that the father, late Rama Shankar Mishra and after him, the two
petitioners/sons are occupying the land without any hindrance.
5. The submission further is that one Surendra Singh
moved before this Court in CWJC No. 19448 of 2024
(Surendra Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) for directing
the Circle Officer, Marhaura, Saran at Chapra to remove the
encroachment made over the land (the details of petitioner land
stands recorded). It came to be disposed of on 03.01.2025 by a
Coordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Sah) and
paragraph-3 read as follows:
“3. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and proper
Patna High Court CWJC No.10133 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
5/9to grant liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate
petition under the provisions of the Bihar Public
Land Encroachment Act, 1956, for redressal of the
aforesaid grievances, before the respondent no.5,
within a period of four weeks from today,
whereupon the respondent no.5 shall enquire into
the matter within a period of four weeks and in
case it is found that the land in question is a public
land, he shall initiate appropriate proceedings
under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, 1956 and after giving due
opportunity to the affected persons, shall pass the
final order under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public
Land Encroachment Act, 1956, in accordance with
law, forthwith.”
6. This followed the report vide letter no. 1492 dated
18.09.2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Marhaura, Saran and
addressed to the Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra in which
after recording that though the name of Rama Shankar Mishra is
recorded as an asami of the ex landlord Brijeshwari Dutt Pandit,
however, the enquiry report by the Subordinate Officials found it
to be prima facie suspicious, and accordingly, a recommendation
was made for cancellation of the jamabandi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10133 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
6/9
7. This followed the notice dated 20.09.2025 issued by
the Additional Collector in Jamabandi Cancellation No. 763 of
2025-26 (State through the Circle Officer, Marhaura vs.
Govind Mishra and Ors.).
8. The recommendation of the Circle Officer,
Marhaura is dated 18.09.2025 and the notice records its date as
20.09.2025. Ten months later, the present writ petition has been
preferred challenging the said notice.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though they have submitted their reply alongwith all the
documents before the Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra, no
decision has been taken and expecting an adverse order, the writ
petition.
10. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has
taken this Court to paragraphs-9 and 10 to show that the
petitioner has dedicated two paragraphs of the writ petition
alleging ill motive of Surendra Singh which resulted into
disposal of CWJC No. 19448 of 2024 on 03.01.2025 and
initiation of Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 763 of 2025-26.
However, in the list of respondents, the name of Surendra Singh
is missing.
11. The submission further is that Surendra Singh in
his writ petition made both the petitioners as also respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.10133 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
7/9
nos. 6 and 7 but here the petitioners chose to skip his name and
as such, this case is fit to be dismissed for non-joinder of the
necessary parties.
12. The further submission is that the Additional
Collector, Saran, Chapra has simply issued notice. Ten months
ago on the basis of a report submitted by the Circle Officer,
Marhaura. The petitioner has already filed reply and order has
been passed only on the basis of apprehension of an adverse
order, this writ petition. In that background, it is a premature
petition and be dismissed.
13. Having heard the parties, this Court has to take
note of the submissions put forward by the respective counsels.
Learned State counsel has objected to the consideration of the
writ petition on the ground that Surendra Singh is missing in the
list of the respondents and as such, it be dismissed for non-
joinder of necessary parties. Further, a notice has been issued,
petitioners have submitted their reply, no decision has come and
in that background, interfering in the ongoing proceeding is
unwarranted.
14. In the case of Kamleshwar Tiwary vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 10372 of 2017), this Court had
taken note of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of
Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Patna High Court CWJC No.10133 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
8/9
Pradesh vs. Collector and Ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 472
wherein in para 12 and it was observed as under:
“12. This Court is guided by the order of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chief
Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. Collector and Ors reported in 2003 (3)
SCC 472 in which it was held that non-joinder of
necessary party can be the ground for dismissal of
writ petition. Having taken note of the fact and
hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner deliberately preferred the writ
petition knowing very well about the aforesaid
facts/purchase made by the purchasers from the
father of Vipin Mishra namely, late Deepnarayan
Mishra still deliberately chose not to make the
purchasers as party respondents. Once the Circle
Officer has come to the conclusion that only 0.01
decimal of land of Deep Narain Mishra is left, he
has to move before the competent Civil Court.”
15. Similarly, the petitioner in this case chose to
dedicate two paragraphs of the writ petition alleging the role of
Surendra Singh, and in fact, the present petition is based on the
allegation made on him that it was he who interfered with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10133 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
9/9
long peaceful physical possession of the land by filing the writ
petition. Still, he was left out in the list of respondents in the writ
petition.
16. Further, on notice, the petitioners duly appeared
and filed their reply, no order has come yet. Only apprehension
of an adverse order prompted them to file writ petition which has
to be rejected.
17. Though this Court observes that the notice was
issued on 20.04.2025 and we are in the month of July, 2026, it is
high time that the Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra passes a
reasoned order if the pleadings stand completed.
18. The writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed. No Cost.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
