Sunil Kumar Sharma vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5298 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010311992024
======================================================
1. Ravindra Kumar son of Sriram Prasad, R/of Mohalla-House No. 43, LIG H,
Near Kankarbagh Tempo Stand Lohia Nagar, PS-Kankarbagh, District-
Patna.
2. Naresh Razzak @ Naresh Prasad, son of Piyari Ram Razzak, R/of Mohalla-
Ritz House, 90 feet Road, Janki Nagar Hanuman Nagar, PS-Kankarbagh,
District-Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Collector, Patna.
2. The District Collector, Patna.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Patna.
4. The Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif, P.S.-Phulwari Sharif, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4839 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010311992024
======================================================
1. Sunil Kumar Sharma Son of Late Rajkumar Sharma resident of 90 feet road,
Malahipakri, P.S. Patraknagar, District Patna.
2. Smt. Krishna Prasad, Wife of Late Nand Keshwar Prasad resident of 90 feet
road, Malahipakri, P.S. Patraknagar, District Patna.
3. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Son of Late Rameshwar Prasad resident of 90 feet
road, Malahipakri, P.S. Patraknagar, District Patna.
4. Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Ram Chandra Sharma resident of 90 feet road,
Malahipakri, P.S. Patraknagar, District Patna.
5. Geeta Devi, Wife of Sushil Kumar resident of 90 feet road, Malahipakri, P.S.
Patraknagar, District Patna.
6. Satendra Narayan Singh, Son of Late Sitaram Singh resident of 90 feet road,
Malahipakri, P.S. Patraknagar, District Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Govt, of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
2/21
3. The Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif Circle, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5298 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC to SC-26
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4839 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Babita Kumari, AC to SC-1
Mr. Md. Irshad, AC to SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 05-11-2026
Ref: C.W.J.C. No. 5298 of 2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the State.
2. That through this writ application the petitioner
makes a prayer for issuance of writ/writ, order/order,
direction/directions to the Respondents for following
relief/reliefs:
“A. To direct the respondent, especially
respondent no. 4 to supply certified copies of the
final order passed in Land Encroachment case no.
07/2023-24 to the petitioners.
B. To quash the notice dated 05.03.2024
issued by Respondent no.4 which was received by
the petitioner on 11.03.2024 by which the
petitioner no. 1 has been directed to remove the
encroachment from the land appertaining to plot
no. 274 area 315 sq feet by before 21.03.2024
which is the residential house of the petitioner
upon which after purchase of the land in question
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
3/21
the petitioner has constructed a pucca house and
shop on the land in question and the entire family
are residing otherwise it will be removed forcibly
and also they are liable for punishment under IPC.
C. To quash the notice dated 05.03.2024
issued by Respondent no.4 which was received by
the petitioner on 11.03.2024 by which the
petitioner no. 2 has been directed to remove the
encroachment from the land appertaining to plot
no. 274 area 315 sq feet by or before 21.03.2024
which is the residential house of the petitioner
upon which after purchase of the land in question
the petitioner has constructed a pucca house and
shop on the land in question and the entire family
are residing otherwise it will be removed forcibly
and also they are liable for punishment under IPC.
D. To stay the notice dated 05.03.2024
issued by Respondent no.4 against the petitioner by
which both the petitioners have been directed to
remove the encroachment from the land which is
the residential house of the petitioners.
E. To direct the respondents not to take any
coercive action till the final decision of the present
writ application.
F. To stay the Land Encroachment case no.
07/2023-24 pending before the Circle Officer
Phulwari Sharif, Patna during pendency of the
present writ application.
G. To stay the Land Encroachment case no.
07/2021-22 pending before the Circle Officer
Phulwari Sharif, Patna during pendency of the
present writ application.
H. Any other relief / reliefs for which the
petitioner is entitled under the facts and
circumstances of the case”.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notice dated
05.03.2024, served on 11.03.2024 in Land Encroachment Case
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
4/21
No. 07/2023-24, by which they have been directed to remove
the alleged encroachment from Plot No. 274 by 21.03.2024,
failing which it will be removed forcibly. The case of the
petitioners is that Mrs. Anju Kumari, wife of petitioner no. 1,
acquired the status of Raiyat in respect of the residential house
on a part of Survey Plot No. 274, Khata 12, Tauzi No. 355,
Kankarbagh, Patna, through registered absolute sale deed No.
10882 dated 05.12.2015. Her name was thereafter mutated in
the year 2017 and rent has been paid up to date. As regards
petitioner no. 2, the land in Khata No. 22, Plot No. 274 is joint
property, in his possession after purchase, and was mutated in
the year 1982. His entire family has since been residing there
and paying rent, and an LPC has been issued in favour of his
family. An earlier notice issued in Land Encroachment Case No.
07/2021-22 was challenged by the petitioners along with others
in CWJC No. 2080/2022, which was disposed of on 29.11.2022
with liberty to file replies/objections within four weeks. The
Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif was directed to consider them and
pass a final order under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, 1956 in accordance with law, and status quo
was to be maintained in the meantime. The petitioners filed their
objections, but no final order was passed in Land Encroachment
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
5/21
Case No. 07/2021-22, which is still pending, and another notice
was instead issued on 05.03.2024 in Land Encroachment Case
No. 07/2023-24.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the notice dated 05.03.2024 was issued under Section 6 of
the Land Encroachment Act without issuing the mandatory
notice under Section 3 of the Act, and placed reliance on
Shailesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2019 (6) BLJ
96 , in which it was held that not less than two weeks’ time to
appear is a mandatory requirement for the notice under Form-1.
It was also submitted that the notice dated 05.03.2024 was
issued despite the interim protection of status quo granted with
regard to the houses of the petitioners in CWJC No. 2080/2022,
and while Land Encroachment Case No. 07/2021-22 remains
pending with no final order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that on 12.03.2024 the petitioners submitted a chirkut
at the office of the Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif for a certified
copy of the final order passed in Land Encroachment Case No.
07/2023-24 so that they could challenge it in appeal before the
learned District Collector, but the order was not provided. It was
lastly submitted that the petitioners came to know through
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
6/21
reliable sources that the District Administration and the Circle
Officer were going to demolish their house on 21.03.2024, and
that the action of the respondents violates Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, which provides that no person shall be
deprived of property save by authority of law, and that it
amounts to violation of the fundamental principle of law and
fair play.
6. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos.
2, 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioners were given notice under
the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act in
Encroachment Case No. 7/2023-24, and the notice issued by the
Circle Officer is just and proper because it was issued after the
passing of the final order in that case, so the allegation of the
petitioners is unfounded. It was also submitted that the
petitioners have encroached upon public land, as is evident from
the report of the Circle Amin dated 20.12.2021, and that they are
encroachers of public land.
7. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos.
2, 3 and 4 further submitted that after the order dated 29.11.2022
in CWJC No. 2080 of 2022, the petitioners filed their objection
and the final order was passed on 05.03.2024, and therefore
notice under Section 6(ii) of the Bihar Public Land
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
7/21
Encroachment Act was given to the petitioners. It was also
submitted that after passing of the final order in Land
Encroachment Case No. 7 of 2021-22, notice was issued to the
petitioners to remove the encroachment and that the house of the
petitioners has not been demolished, and that it is wrong to say
that the final order has not been provided to the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos.
2, 3 and 4 lastly submitted that the petitioners have an
alternative remedy to file an appeal in the court of the learned
Collector against the order of the Circle Officer, and that the
writ application is devoid of any merit and is fit to be dismissed.
Ref: C.W.J.C. No. 4839 of 2024
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
10. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed for the following relief(s):
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the notice dated
05/03/2024, whereby and whereunder the
respondent no.3 has directed the petitioners to
remove encroachment from their self - acquired
land within 15 days from the date of notice failing
which they shall be liable to the penalty provided
under section 188 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) During the pendency of the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
8/21
petition the operation of the impugned notice dated
05/03/2024 may be stayed and the respondents may
be restrained from taking any coercive step against
the petitioner.
(iii) Any other writ/writs, order/orders or
direction/directions as the facts and circumstances
of the case may require and deemed fit by this
Hon’ble Court may also be issued”.
11 . The case of the petitioners is that they acquired
their respective lands in Mauza Jaganpura through registered
sale deeds, and Jamabandis were created in their names, that
rent receipts are issued, and that they have constructed
residential houses on the land and have been residing there since
then and that an Encroachment Case No. 07/2021-22 was
initiated by the Circle Officer against them and others and a
notice under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act,
1956 was issued on 19.01.2022. They challenged it in CWJC
No. 2080 of 2022, which was disposed of on 29.11.2022 by
quashing the notices under Section 6(2), with a direction to file
objections in the ongoing case and to the Circle Officer to
consider them and pass a final order under Section 6(1) of the
Act. The petitioners filed their show cause replies in
compliance, and on 25.01.2024 they again received a notice
under Section 3(1) of the Act, in response to which they filed
their show cause on 10.02.2024. then suddenly the petitioners
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
9/21
received the notice dated 05.03.2024, directing them to remove
encroachment from their self-acquired land within 15 days,
failing which they would be liable to the penalty under Section
188 of the Indian Penal Code, and they are aggrieved by this
notice.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that respondent no. 3 issued the direction for removal of
encroachment without holding any proceeding under the Bihar
Public Land Encroachment Act, without considering the show
cause filed by the petitioners, and without giving them any
opportunity of hearing, and that this is also in wilful
disobedience of the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in CWJC No.
2080 of 2022, in which status quo was directed to be
maintained. It was submitted that the petitioners have no
knowledge of any order passed under Section 6(II) of the Act till
date, and that the so-called measurement report, on the basis of
which the land and construction were declared an
encroachment, was not provided to them.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that the land of the petitioners is raiyati, as is
established from the khatian, rent receipts and Jamabandi
register copy, and that the respondents failed to investigate the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
10/21
nature of the land and proceeded on the premise that it is public
land. Reliance was placed on Rekha Singh vs. State of Bihar,
1992 (2) PLJR, for the proposition that the summary procedure
under the Act cannot be invoked when a title dispute is
involved, and on Hafiza Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, 1991 (1)
PLJR 384, wherein it was held that the first responsibility is on
the State to prima facie show that the land alleged to be
encroached is public land. It was also submitted that the finding
of encroachment rests on mere presumption, that no
measurement was conducted in a scientific manner with regard
to khesra nos. 1150 and 1151, and that the respondents had no
jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioners under the Act.
14. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 submitted that the Encroachment Case No. 7 of 2021-22
was initiated against the petitioners and others, and that after the
order dated 29.11.2022 in CWJC No. 2080 of 2022 the
petitioners filed their objections, which were considered and the
petitioners were heard at length by the Circle Officer. It was also
submitted that after hearing the parties, the final order under
Section 6(1) of the Act was passed on 05.03.2024, and thereafter
the petitioners were served notice under Section 6(ii) of the Act,
which is according to law and that the Circle Officer had also
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
11/21
issued a notice under Section 3(i) of the Act directing the
petitioners to file their show cause.
15. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 further submitted that the petitioners have encroached
upon public land, that their show cause was not satisfactory, and
that the show cause and representation of the petitioners were
duly considered by respondent no. 3 and their cases were not
found genuine. It was also submitted that, by Memo No. 2001
dated 19.08.2021 of the Circle Officer regarding measurement
of the 90 feet road (Malahi Pakri to NH-30), the Circle Amin
measured the land and found that the petitioners have
encroached upon the public road, and recommended initiation of
an encroachment proceeding, on which the encroachment case
was initiated.
16. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 lastly submitted that by order dated 19.03.2024 this
Court directed that no demolition shall be made during the
pendency of the case, and that in compliance no demolition has
been made by the respondents.
17. Having heard the parties and perused the
record, it is evident that the order passed under Section 6(1) of
the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, by the Circle
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
12/21
Officer, Phulwarisharif, is silent on the objection filed by the
petitioner. It is relevant to indicate here that such objections
were filed in the light of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court. The non-consideration of these objections vitiates
the order of the authorities concerned. It is a settled principle of
law that a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative body cannot
pass an order affecting anyone’s rights in a mechanical manner
without applying its mind to the objections raised. In a catena of
judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed its view that
objective consideration and reasons are the foundation of an
order.
18. In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam
Sunder Jhunjhunwala, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1669 , the
Central Government set aside a company’s refusal to register a
share transfer without giving any reason. Even though the
decision was administrative, the Court insisted on reasons. It
held that the Government acted as a tribunal in exercising
appellate powers, and that such powers cannot be effectively
exercised if reasons are not given by the Central Government in
support of the order.
Similarly in Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of
India, reported in (1969) 3 SCC 868, the Hon’ble Apex Court,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
13/21
while dealing with the revisional jurisdiction of the Central
Government under the then Section 36 of the Central Excise and
Salt Act, 1944, held that the Central Government was actually
exercising judicial power of the State and in exercising judicial
power reasons in support of the order must be disclosed on two
grounds. The first is that the person aggrieved gets an
opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons are erroneous and
secondly, the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent
against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority
invested with the judicial power.
19. Further in M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santosh
Kumar vs. State of U.P and others , reported in (1970) 1 SCC
764 , while dealing with U.P. Sugar Dealers License Order under
which the license was cancelled, the Apex Court held that such
an order of cancellation is quasi-judicial and must be a speaking
one. It was further held that merely giving an opportunity of
hearing is not enough and further pointed out where the order is
subject to appeal, the necessity to record reason is even greater.
The learned Judges held that the recording of reasons in support
of a decision on a disputed claim ensures that the decision is not
a result of caprice, whim or fancy but was arrived at after
considering the relevant law and that the decision was just.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
14/21
Later on in Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others ,
reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836 , the Apex Court while dealing
with the question of selection under Indian Administrative
Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion
Regulation) held that the expression “reasons for the proposed
supersession” should not be mere rubber stamp reasons. Such
reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject
matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a
decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. The Apex
Court also held that the reasons in such context would mean the
link between materials which are considered and the
conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational
nexus between the two.
20. It has been held time and again that recording
reasons is one of the attributes of quasi-judicial functioning and
that natural justice requires reasons to be written for the
conclusions to be reached, the same was reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander vs. Union of India
and others , reported in (1986) 3 SCC 103 , the Apex Court was
dealing with the appellate provisions under the Railway
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 condemned the
mechanical way of dismissal of appeal in the context of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
15/21
requirement of Rule 22(2) of the aforesaid Rule and held that
the word “consider” occurring to the Rule 22(2) must mean the
Railway Board shall duly apply its mind and give reasons for its
decision. The learned Judges held that the duty to give reason is
an incident of the judicial process and emphasized that in
discharging quasi-judicial functions the appellate authority must
act in accordance with natural justice and give reasons for its
decision.
21. Further in the case of Charan Singh vs.
Healing Touch Hospital and others , reported in (2000) 7 SCC
668 , a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, while dealing with
a grievance under CP Act, held that the authorities under the Act
exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer
disputes and it is, therefore, imperative that such a body should
arrive at conclusions based on reasons and that the said Act,
being one of the benevolent pieces of legislation, is intended to
protect a large body of consumers from exploitation as the said
Act provides for an alternative mode for consumer justice by the
process of a summary trial. The powers which are exercised are
definitely quasi-judicial in nature and in such a situation the
conclusions must be based on reasons and held that requirement
of recording reasons is “too obvious to be reiterated and needs
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
16/21
no emphasizing”.
22. Later on the Apex Court in Kranti Associates
Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010) 9
SCC 496 , stressed upon the importance of reasoned judicial
orders and elaborated on why “reason is the soul of justice.” The
Court in its para 47 summarized the following points:
“a. In India the judicial trend has always been to
record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if
such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b . A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to
serve the wider principle of justice that justice must
not only be done it must also appear to be done as
well.
d . Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
e . Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
f . Reasons have virtually become as indispensable
a component of a decision making process as
observing principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
g . Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
17/21
by superior Courts.
h . The ongoing judicial trend in all countries
committed to rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of reasoned decisions
based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life
blood of judicial decision making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice. i.
Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days
can be as different as the judges and authorities
who deliver them. All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to demonstrate by
reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for
sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery
system.
j . Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
k . If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not
candid enough about his/her decision making
process then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent,
clear and succinct. A pretense of reasons or
`rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a
valid decision making process.
m . It cannot be doubted that transparency is the
sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial
powers. Transparency in decision making not only
makes the judges and decision makers less prone to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
18/21
errors but also makes them subject to broader
scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-
737).
n . Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in
decision making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
(1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs.
University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405,
wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European
Convention of Human Rights which requires,
“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given
for judicial decisions”.
o . In all common law jurisdictions judgments play
a vital role in setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of law, requirement of
giving reasons for the decision is of the essence
and is virtually a part of “Due Process”.
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. Recently the Apex Court in Zulfiquar Haider
v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 480 , held that the right to shelter is
an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and can be
taken away only by following due process of law. Since the rule
of law is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the Court
held that residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
19/21
in a summary manner without following the principles of
natural justice. It held that a show-cause notice must be
genuinely served and the owner given a real chance to show
cause and to appeal, and it awarded costs of Rs. 10 lakh in each
case for a demolition carried out in disregard of this.
Also in the case of Rajeev Singh and Ors. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2026 INSC 938) , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the lack of reasons is indicative of
non-application of mind and it handicaps the higher Court from
discerning the basis upon which the conclusion was arrived at
and testing its legality and/or correctness. The relevant paras are
reproduced below;
“6 . Although, we are conscious of the
immense burden that Hon’ble Judges of the High
Court are required to shoulder, a laconic order
(such as the impugned order) can neither be
appreciated nor countenanced. Writing brief
orders, in the circumstances of the heavy burden
being shouldered, could be a prudent approach but
not at the cost of reasons. Every judicial order
must meet the basic minimum standard required
from a Judge of the High Court while disposing of
any matter before him, more so in a criminal
appeal of the present nature, where the appellants
not found involved initially is forced to face trial.
7. We may remind ourselves of the decision
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
20/21
of this Court in Asma Lateef and Another versus
Shabbir Ahmad and Others , where the
observations made in paragraphs 57 and 58,
though in respect of civil proceedings, have equal
relevance even in respect of adjudication of
criminal proceedings. The cardinal principle of the
justice delivery system was reiterated that every
judicial verdict, which determines the rights and
liabilities of the parties to the proceedings, must
disclose not only the outcome, but also the reasons
therefor, i.e., why one party has succeeded and the
other has not. The insistence on reasons for the
decision is for the simple reason that it ensures
application of mind by the adjudicator to the
material on record and also enables the
unsuccessful party to test the same before the
higher forum. Lack of reasons, indicative of
nonapplication of mind, handicaps the higher court
from discerning the basis upon which the
conclusion was arrived at and testing its legality
and/or correctness”.
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. From the above, it can be held that an
administrative or judicial order that lacks reasons or
justifications, or demonstrates a failure to apply its mind, cannot
legally deprive a person of their right to property under Article
300A, particularly when passed in a summary proceeding like
the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Hence, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5298 of 2024 dt.05-11-2026
21/21
order dated 05.03.2024, being cryptic, unreasonable, and
arbitrary, is hereby quashed.
25. The matter is remanded to the authorities
concerned to pass an appropriate and reasoned order after giving
an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
26. With the aforesaid observations, the present
writ petitions are allowed.
(Alok Kumar, J)
manish/-
AFR/NAFR A. F. R.
CAV DATE 27.08.2026
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date N.A