Patna High Court
Radha Raman Lal vs The State Of Bihar on 22 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12516 of 2022
======================================================
Radha Raman Lal Son of Late Surya Narayan Lal, Resident of Village-
Itharwa, P.O. Darima, Dist Madhubani, PIN 847112.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Madhubani
2. Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Madhubani
3. Circle officer (C.O.) Block Bishfi, Madhubani.
4. Blok Development Officer, Block Bishfi, Madhubani.
5. LOk Shikayat Nivaran Padadhikari, Benipatti, Madhubani
6. Superintendent of Police (S.P.), Madhubani.
7. Mukihya, Dilip Kumar Safi, Panchayat Singhia Purvi, Block Bisfi,
Madhubani, PIN 847112
8. Binay Kumar Jha Son of Late Kaladhar Jha Resident of Village Itharwa, P.O.
Darima, Madhubani, PIN 847122
9. Yoganand Jha Son of Late Upendra Jha Resident of Village Itharwa, P.O.
Darima, Madhubani, PIN 847122
10. Abhilashanand Jha Son of Late Kaladhar Jha Resident of Village Itharwa,
P.O. Darima, Madhubani, PIN 847122
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Alok Shahi, Advocate
Mr. Akshat Arghya, Advocate
Ms. Swarna Roy, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy (GP18)
For the Respondent No. 8 Mr. Baidyanath Thakur
:
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 29-04-2026
Heard Ms. Archana Sinha, learned senior Advocate on
behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Baidynath Thakur, learned counsel on
behalf of Respondent No. 8 and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner seeking following relief(s):
Patna High Court CWJC No.12516 of 2022 dt. 29-04-2026
2/8
(i) For protecting the interest of the
petitioner by directing the respondents to remove the
illegal construction of road from the private/khatiyani
land of the petitioner;
(ii) For directing the respondents to
remove the illegal construction of the road which was
constructed in connivance with the authorities
without acquiring the land and also without taking
consent from the petitioner;
(iii) For directing the respondents to take
action against the encroachers/respondents as per law
and;
(iv) For any other consequential relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled
during the course of hearing of this writ petition.
3. The facts giving rise to the present writ application is
to the effect that the petitioner is the owner of the land namely
8732 (old) 15521, 16335 (new) situated at Itharwa, Block Bisfi,
Madhubani and is in possession of the same howeever the private
respondent in connivance with Ward Commissioner/Zila Parshad
has constructed a P.C.C. road on the Raiyati land of the petitioner
without taking any consent/acquisition of land by the Government,
which was exclusively for the personal use of the private
respondent.
4. Ms. Archana Sinha, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the petitioner has acquired the land through
Bandobasti and is paying rent to the government, which also finds
mention in Khatiyan. (Annexure-1). It is submitted that upon
several representations filed by the son of the petitioner before
officer-in-charge, Bishfi P.S., before Lok Shikayat Nivaran
Patna High Court CWJC No.12516 of 2022 dt. 29-04-2026
3/8
Padadhikari, Benipatti Sub-Division, Madhubani and also before
Janta Darbar of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, who, thereafter,
directed Circle Officer to send Government appointed Amin to
measure the land, who submitted the report which was found in
favour of the petitioner. It is next submitted that Deputy
Development Commissioner (DDC), Madhubani directed the
Circle Officer, Bishfi, Madhubani to provide possession of land to
the petitioner, who did not take action for the same and upon
inquiry stated that he is seeking legal opinion of ADC, Madhubani.
It is further submitted that District Magistrate, Madhubani
instructed the Circle Officer, Bishfi, Madhubani to comply with
the same whereafter the said Circle Officer, Bishfi, Madhubani
fixed specific date for the petitioner to be present at site, so that
encroachment be removed and possession be given but the Circle
Officer, Bishfi, Madhubani, himself, did not turn up.
5. It is next submitted that subsequently again Circle
Officer, Bishfi, Madhubani failed to provide any information and
allegedly the land was encroached by respondents for giving
benefit to one person and more so, no objection signature has
fraudulently been taken from Binay Kumar Jha (private
respondent) and he has also presented false facts before SDM
Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12516 of 2022 dt. 29-04-2026
4/8
6. It is submitted through the rejoinder that the
construction took place on 06/07.02.2021 and an application was
submitted with wrong Panchnama on 29.10.2021. The
Panchnama itself suffers from a number of infirmities which
cannot be legally acceptable. It is submitted that the petitioner
acquired the land legally and has been paying rent to the
Government of Bihar. It is further submitted that no subsequent
mention about use of land for transport was ever mentioned by
respondents. The learned senior counsel submitted that since the
land was not closed, the same was being used by people as a
passage but that does not give right to the Mukhiya to use
government funds to construct a concrete road over the same.
7. Ms. Archana Sinha, learned senior counsel thus has
prayed that the illegal construction of P.C.C. road be demolished.
8. The learned G.P.-18 making submissions on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 to 3 submitted that the present petition is barred
by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. It is submitted
that the land appertaining to Khata No. 801 is recorded as
Gairmajarua Khaas under cadastral survey and is not a raiyati
land as claimed by the petitioner and the land was being used as
passage for time immemorial and thus no consent was required for
construction of P.C.C. road. It is submitted that Binay kumar Jha
Patna High Court CWJC No.12516 of 2022 dt. 29-04-2026
5/8
and Yoganand Jha filed an application before Circle Officer,
Bishfi, Madhubani on 29.10.2021, wherein they have produced a
copy of panchnama dated 08.01.1979 stating that petitioner has
admitted the passage for ingress and outgress and allowed the land
to be used as road.
9. It is next submitted that petitioner has never acquired
land from an ex-landlord or from the State and rent receipt does
not create or extinguish the title. It is also submitted that in C.S,
Khatiyan land was entered as Gairmajarua Khaas while in
revisional survey Records of Rights, land is mentioned as raiyati
land and no NOC was obtained from Circle Officer, Bishfi,
Madhubani hence direction was sought from Additional Collector
for vacating the land in question. It is lastly submitted that upon
question being posed on Circle Officer as to why the direction of
Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Madhubani was not
complied it has been stated that the same could not be done on
account of non availability of police force. The State has relied on
the panchanama dated 08.01.1979, whereby the petitioner has
allowed passage and earlier Kharanja road was constructed and
later P.C.C. road was constructed over the same.
10. Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, learned counsel representing
Respondent No. 8 submits that the petitioner has tried to mislead
Patna High Court CWJC No.12516 of 2022 dt. 29-04-2026
6/8
this court by stating that the passage was his personal land
however the same was being used for more than 40 years as Rasta,
which the petitioner has himself permitted to the father of the
answering respondent. It has been submitted that with the efflux of
time the said land being permitted to be used as Rasta (Passage)
has created a right of easement and therefore the same cannot be
disturbed only because a P.C.C. road has been constructed upon
the same. He has emphatically asserted that once the petitioner has
allowed the passage to be used for others the right of easement has
accrued to the respondents and as there was a Khranja road
existing on the said land the same has been converted into a
concrete road and therefore there is no new change to the usage of
the land and hence the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties,
two issues come out which need adjudication in the present writ
application. One is as to whether government funds can be used to
construct a P.C.C. Road over a Raiyati land? The other, whether a
right of easement granted by the petitioner through a Panchnama
can be withdrawn subsequently by getting the P.C.C. road
demolished?
12. The land in question is a Raiyati land of the
petitioner, has not been denied though the State has raised a vague
Patna High Court CWJC No.12516 of 2022 dt. 29-04-2026
7/8
question as to how a Gair Majarua Khas entry was converted into a
Raiyati land. The ownership and possession of the petitioner has
not been denied and in fact the same is admitted, if the Panchnama
is taken into consideration. The land being Raiyati Land and if
there is no ‘No Objection’ from the petitioner granting permission
to construct a Concrete road, government funds could not have
been used for such construction. Such construction of road using
raiyati lands of people are permissible only when the persons agree
and willingly give their no objection for such construction. Hence,
the construction of a road on such land is not permitted and has
thus rightly been directed to be removed.
13. The other question with regard to the right of
easement raised by the private respondent no. 8 on the basis of
some Panchnama said to be executed way back in 1979 can be
answered simply that the right of easement is enforceable and if
the respondent no. 8 is aggrieved by any such action of the
petitioner of denying him the right of passage as decided in the
year 1979 then he can move a competent court of civil jurisdiction
and claim his right. From the prayers made in this writ petition and
also the pleadings this writ petition has not been filed to decide the
rights of the parties and claim and counter claims with respect to
the land in question and the same cannot also be decided in a writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.12516 of 2022 dt. 29-04-2026
8/8
jurisdiction hence the arguments being raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent no. 8 cannot be looked into in the
present proceedings, which is not even dealing with the said issue.
14. The petitioner is only aggrieved by the fact of
construction of a pacca (concrete) road constructed on his land by
government funds and it is the said issue which needs to be
adjudicated.
15. As already observed herein above, the construction
of a Pacca road over the raiyati lands of the petitioner cannot be
permitted, if the same has been done without any consent and
willingness by the petitioner and the same needs to be demolished.
16. The District Magistrate, Madhubani is directed that
he shall ensure that the concrete construction made on the land of
the petitioner is demolished within a period of one month from the
date of production/communication of this order. The state shall be
at liberty to recover the amount used in such construction of road
from the erring persons after fixing the liability.
17. The writ application is allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 20.04.2026 Uploading Date 29.04.2026 Transmission Date NA