Birendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar and Ors
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6927 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010640852016
======================================================
Birendra Kumar Son of Late Basudeo Narayan Resident of Mohalla - Ram
Nagar, Opp Nawada Block, P.S. Nawada Town, District - Nawada, At Present
C/o Dinesh Prasad, Shanti Niketan, Residential School, Behind Nawada
Block, Gopal Nagar, P.S. Nawada Town, District – Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya
3. The District Officer - Cum - Collector, Nawada
4. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada
5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Nawada
6. The Circle officer, Nawada
7. Narendra Prasad Son of Late Sheo Nandan Prasad Resident of village -
Barawan, P.O. Bhadhokhara, P.S. Mufassil, District - Nawada, At Present
Mohalla - Ram Nagar, Opposite Nawada Block, District - Nawada
8. The Executive Officer, Nawada, Nagar Parishad, Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Sripriya Sinha, Adv.
For State : Mr. Anuj Kumar, SC-10
For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 30-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the Respondent No. 7 as well as learned counsel for
the State.
RELIEFS
2. By way of the present writ petition preferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
seeks the following primary reliefs: (i) For issuance of a writ in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
2/34
the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction commanding the respondent authorities to forthwith
restore and hand over physical possession of the subject land and
the dwelling house of the petitioner situated at Tauzi No. 5319,
Thana No. 367, C.S. Khata No. 192, C.S. Plot No. 3105
(corresponding to R.S. Plot Nos. 369 and 370), Mohalla Ram
Nagar, Nawada, from which he was illegally and forcibly
dispossessed on 13.01.2016. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, order, or direction commanding the respondents to pay
adequate and exemplary compensation to the petitioner for the
arbitrary, illegal, and high-handed demolition of his sole dwelling
house on 13.01.2016, executed without any lawful authority or
procedure established by law, thereby infringing his fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution
of India.
FACTS
3. The short facts giving rise to the present case are that
the disputed land pertains to Tauzi No. 5319, Thana No. 367,
C.S. Khata No. 192, Khaiwat No. 01, C.S. Plot No. 3105, Area
14 ½ decimal situated at Mohalla Ram Nagar Opposite Sadar
Block, Nawada (Opp. Block quarter), P.S. Nawada, District-
Nawada. After revisional survey the same corresponds to R.S.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
3/34
Plot No. 369 and 370, R.S. Khata No. 600.
4. The aforesaid land is still in joint possession amongst
the parties, and there is no legal or Khangi partition made
between them. Since long back about 40 years ago their ancestor
made oral partition from which 3 decimal land was given to the
petitioner and the petitioner constructed house on the said 3
decimal of land and has been residing there since 40 years. The
land was purchased land which was purchased by ancestors of
the petitioner from joint family income and the same is joint
family property, the petitioner being one of the sharers.
5. That the Gotia of the petitioner i.e. Respondent No. 7
wanted to grab the share of the petitioner on the basis of wrong
survey entry made by the Survey Team in collusion with
Respondent No. 7, whereas the house of the petitioner is in
existing possession. During survey the said land was entered in
the name of Shiv Nandan Prasad, the father of Respondent No. 7,
while the petitioner and his family were residing in the house
built in the share of the petitioner.
6. That Respondent No. 7 intentionally initiated the
dispute by filing a false complaint case bearing C.C. No.
1287/2014 on 08-08-2014 before the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nawada against the petitioner and his wife under
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
4/34
Sections 380 & 452 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of
the Arms Act. Later on the said complaint was converted into
Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 543/14 dated 02-09-2014.The
relevant document is marked as Annexure-1 to the writ
application.
7. That on 22.09.2014, the petitioner filed a
comprehensive application before the Executive Officer, Nagar
Parishad, Nawada, bringing on record the fact that Respondent
No. 7 had obtained the demolition order through gross
misrepresentation and concealment of actual facts. Enclosing the
sale deed, the F.I.R. (Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 543/14), and
the pleadings of Title Suit No. 357/2014, the petitioner prayed for
staying the execution of the demolition order until the disposal of
the pending civil suit. A true copy of the application dated
22.09.2014 is annexed hereto as Annexure-2 .
8. That the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 357/2014 on 20-
9-2014 in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Nawada in which the
respondents have appeared and taken adjournment to file
rejoinder on 10-10-2015. In the present suit the petitioner is the
plaintiff and Respondent No. 7 is defendant No. 1 (1st Set) and
defendants No. 2 to 11 (IInd Set) are the other Gotias and co-
shareholders of the said land and defendants No. 12-14 (IIIrd
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
5/34
Set) are other Gotias as well as co-sharers. The relevant
document is marked as Annexure -3 to the writ application.
9. That during the pendency of Title Suit No. 357/2014,
Respondent No. 7 filed a case before the Deputy Collector Land
Reforms, Nawada bearing Case No. 44/2015 on 21-8-2015 under
Section 4(G) of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act against
the petitioner.
10. The learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR),
Nawada, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 12.12.2015,
allowed the application filed by Respondent No. 7. By the said
order, the Circle Officer, Nawada, was directed to deliver
possession of the disputed land in favour of Respondent No. 7,
with a further direction to seek police assistance from the
concerned Officer-in-Charge, if required. The relevant document
is marked as Annexure -4 to the writ application.
11. That against the order dated 12-12-2015 passed by the
D.C.L.R., Nawada in Case No. 44/2015 the petitioner filed an
appeal under Section 14 of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution
Act bearing B.L.D.R. Appeal No. 8/16 before the Divisional
Commissioner, Gaya on 9-1-2016 within the limitation of 30
days. The relevant document is marked as Annexure -5 to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
6/34
writ application.
12. That the petitioner filed an application before the
Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Nawada on 12-01-2016 by
which he informed the said authority that against the order dated
12-12-2015 he had filed an appeal under the provision of the
B.L.D.R. Act bearing B.L.D.R. Appeal No. 8/16 before the
Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya on 9-1-2016
within the limitation period and praying therein not to execute
the order dated 12-12-2015.
13. That on 13-1-2016 the petitioner personally met the
Circle Officer, Nawada and filed an application praying therein
not to dispossess him from possession in compliance with the
order dated 12-12-2015 passed by the D.C.L.R., Nawada. The
Circle Officer received the same and wrote that the True Copy of
the order dated 12-12-2015 of the D.C.L.R. was not attached.
The relevant document is marked as Annexure-7 to the writ
application.
14. That on 13.01.2016 at about 12:00 P.M., the Circle
Officer, Nawada, arrived at the spot where the petitioner’s house
was situated, accompanied by a bulldozer from the Nagar
Parishad, Nawada, and demolished the house without affording
any opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner, along with his
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
7/34
family members and well-wishers, requested the authorities with
folded hands to stop the demolition proceedings. However, the
said authorities threatened the petitioner's wife and others to
leave the spot, otherwise some untoward incident would occur.
The Circle Officer and a number of subordinate officers of the
Collector, Nawada, had assembled there, and the execution took
place in their presence.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
demolition of the subject house, which was the petitioner's sole
dwelling unit, was wholly illegal and carried out in arbitrary
collusion between Respondent No. 7 and the State authorities.
16. It was contended that the order passed by the Deputy
Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) directing the delivery of
possession was inherently without jurisdiction. Although the
petitioner had challenged the said order in appeal and explicitly
approached all relevant authorities to stay the delivery of
possession during the pendency of the appeal, no action was
taken. Instead, the authorities proceeded to execute the
demolition in the teeth of the pending appellate proceedings.
17. Learned counsel submitted that there is ample
evidence on record demonstrating that the Nagar Parishad
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
8/34
supplied a JCB machine to Respondent No. 7 to execute the
demolition. Furthermore, an unwarranted deployment of 92
police personnel was provided at the behest of Respondent No. 7
to carry out this high-handed action, rendering the petitioner
homeless.
18. Rebutting the State's contention that the structure was
dilapidated, the petitioner argued that no formal enquiry was ever
conducted, nor was any notice served upon him. It was submitted
that any letters issued by the authorities declaring the structure
unsafe were manufactured entirely behind his back, without
affording him any opportunity of hearing, thereby acting in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice.
19. It was further argued that the very institution of a
Miscellaneous Case for delivery of possession by Respondent
No. 7 before the DCLR constitutes an admission that the
petitioner was in settled possession of the land and the house.
Similarly, a prior complaint filed by Respondent No. 7, which
was subsequently converted into a criminal proceeding,
specifically alleged that the petitioner was residing in the
dwelling house forcibly. These legal actions by Respondent No. 7
firmly establish the petitioner's possession, making the
subsequent demolition without due process wholly unjustified.
20. Learned counsel concluded that having resided in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
9/34
house for several years, the petitioner's forceful dispossession
and the destruction of the property severely violated his
fundamental right to life under Article 21 and the constitutional
protection of property under Article 300A of the Constitution of
India.
Judgment relied upon by petitioner
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon
the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1996
SCC OnLine Pat 378 : Emphasizing that the State machinery
cannot be utilized to forcefully evict a citizen without a decree
from a competent Civil Court, learned counsel drew the attention
of this Court to paragraph 53 of the said judgment, wherein it has
been held as follows:
"53. Demolition of structures can never be
used as a handy substitute for eviction of
tenants and lessees. This has precisely been
done in this case. These aspects of the case, if
I may say, in the language of Supreme Court
are remarkable for their disturbing
implications. (Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi v.
The State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1953 SC
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
10/34
215). Thus Rule of Law has been
circumvented and overreached. The College
authorities knew it very well that in order to
evict the petitioner Company it will have to
file a suit. Instead of doing that, the so-called
understanding was reached with P.R.D.A.
authorities and by demolishing the structure,
the petitioner Company has been got rid of.
This Court strongly condemns this subversion
of Rule of Law by the P.R.D.A. authorities at
the instance of the College authorities."
22. Further assailing the very jurisdiction of the Deputy
Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) to pass the impugned order of
eviction and possession, learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maheshwar Mandal
& Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. , 2018 SCC OnLine Pat
1287 : Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to
paragraph 29 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
"29. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 which is the
bone of contention in the present case starts
with a nonobstante clause. It provides that
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
11/34
“notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2) and (3) hereinabove, if no
provision is made in any of the Acts
contained in schedule-I for determination of
rights of allottee/settlee or raiyat and claim
right is yet to be determined, it shall be open
to the competent authority to finally
determine such rights.” However, sub-section
(5) of Section 4 says that “The Competent
Authority, wherever it appears to him that the
case instituted before him involves complex
question of adjudication of title, he shall
close the proceeding and leave it open to
parties to seek remedies before the competent
civil court.” It is in the garb of sub-section
(4) of Section 4 that the competent authority
assumes a jurisdiction to entertain all such
cases which are in the nature of a dispute
covered under one or the another of the six
enactments under schedule-I. It is not in
dispute that to adjudicate all such disputes
which are covered under any of the six
enactments it is the civil court which is
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
12/34
competent to entertain a suit, frame issues
and upon adjudication to pass a judgment
and decree. The words ‘if no provision is
made in any of the Acts contained in
schedule-I for determination of rights of
allotee/settlee or raiyat’ seems to be
mischievous and it has a tendency to usurp
the jurisdiction of civil court which is
competent to decide all disputes under any of
the six enactments."
Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 7
23. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 7 raised a preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition, submitting that the core issue
revolves around highly disputed questions of title, possession,
and an alleged family partition, which can only be adjudicated by
a competent Civil Court.
24. It was pointed out that the petitioner has already
instituted Title Suit No. 357 of 2014 before the competent Court
in Nawada, seeking identical reliefs of restoration and recovery
of possession. Consequently, parallel relief under the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction is misconceived and not
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
13/34
maintainable until the title is lawfully established in the pending
civil suit.
25. Asserting ownership, learned counsel submitted that
the disputed land is the ancestral and Raiyati property of
Respondent No. 7, as reflected in the record of rights. Reliance
was placed on a registered sale deed ( Kewala ) dated 23.11.1936,
the Khatiyan, and corresponding revenue records (Annexure A
series). It was further highlighted that mutation was granted in
favor of Respondent No. 7 on 29.02.1996 by the Additional
Collector, Nawada (Mutation Revision Case No. 58/1982-83). A
subsequent challenge to this mutation by the petitioner was
rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division,
Gaya, vide order dated 04.08.2005 in Mutation Revision Appeal
No. 259634/2000. Rent receipts, municipal tax receipts, and a
Land Possession Certificate standing in the name of Respondent
No. 7 were also relied upon to establish lawful possession.
26. Regarding the demolition, it was submitted that the
structure was genuinely dilapidated and unsafe, as corroborated
by the inspection report and letter of the Junior Engineer, Nagar
Parishad, Nawada, dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure E series),
following a site inspection on 13.02.2014.
27. To counter the petitioner's obstruction, Respondent No.
7 instituted BLDR Case No. 44/2015 for confirmation of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
14/34
possession and removal of obstruction under the Bihar Land
Disputes Resolution Act. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector
(LRDC), Nawada, allowed the case in favor of Respondent No. 7
on 12.12.2015, directing confirmation of possession with police
assistance, if necessary. The petitioner's subsequent Appeal No.
8/2016 before the Divisional Commissioner was dismissed on
23.11.2016. A further challenge before the Bihar Land Tribunal
(BLT) in Case No. 210/2017 was also contested and dismissed in
favor of Respondent No. 7.
28. Learned counsel strongly denied the petitioner's claim
of family partition and any illegal collusion with authorities
involving JCB machines. It was pointed out that the petitioner's
criminal Complaint No. 51/2016 regarding the alleged
demolition was dismissed on 10.03.2017, and Criminal Revision
No. 20/2017 was likewise dismissed. Therefore, no relief for
restoration or compensation is warranted.
Judgment relied upon by respondent no.7
29. The preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the present writ petition, learned counsel for
Respondent No. 7 placed reliance upon the recent
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.
Anima Malar v. S. Aadhavan & Ors. , 2026 INSC 108 .In the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
15/34
said judgment, the Apex Court deprecated the practice of
initiating parallel proceedings by seeking identical reliefs before
a Civil Court and a Writ Court simultaneously. While declining
to entertain the writ petition under such circumstances, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
9. "In the backdrop of the submissions made
by learned counsel for the respective parties,
we have perused the prayers sought by
respondent No. 1 herein in the suit as well as
the prayers sought by the very same
respondent in the writ petition; the prayers
concern the very same property, prayer (d) in
the suit and in the writ petition are common.
The first respondent herein would not have a
shortcut in the adjudication of his case by
seeking prayer (d) in the suit in the form of a
prayer for Writ of Mandamus in the writ
petition. The first respondent could not have
agitated this relief before the two forums."
Submissions on Behalf of the State
30. Learned counsel appearing for the State adopted the
arguments advanced by Respondent No. 7 and submitted that no
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
16/34
illegality or high-handedness was committed by the State
authorities.
31. It was submitted that the delivery of possession was
facilitated strictly in compliance with the lawful directions of the
DCLR. Once the possession was handed over to Respondent No.
7, the subsequent demolition of the dilapidated and unsafe
structure was undertaken by Respondent No. 7 himself. The State
contended that the prayers for restoration of possession and
payment of compensation are legally misconceived, involve
disputed questions of fact, and are fit therefore to be dismissed.
Conclusion
The relief sought is divided in two compartments:
(i) Restoration of possession
(ii) Payment of compensation
First relief
32. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
upon a meticulous perusal of the record, it is evident that the first
relief sought by the petitioner pertains to the restoration and
recovery of possession of the subject land and the demolished
house.
33. At the very outset, it is necessary to note that the rival
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
17/34
claims set up by the parties involve highly disputed questions of
fact and complex issues of title. While the petitioner asserts his
right based on an alleged oral partition that took place forty years
ago, Respondent No. 7 claims exclusive ancestral rights over the
property, placing reliance upon a registered sale deed ( Kewala )
dated 23.11.1936, subsequent mutation orders, and
corresponding revenue records.
34. The record explicitly reveals that for the adjudication
of these competing rights, the petitioner has already instituted
Title Suit No. 357 of 2014, which is currently pending
adjudication before the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Nawada.
35. In this context, it is a well-settled proposition of law
that authorities exercising summary jurisdiction under the Bihar
Land Disputes Resolution Act, such as the Deputy Collector
Land Reforms (DCLR), are not clothed with the jurisdiction to
conclusively adjudicate upon complex and contentious issues of
title and partition. The summary power to direct the delivery of
possession cannot extinguish or override substantive civil rights.
Any order passed by the DCLR is inherently subject to the final
determination of title by a competent Civil Court.
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sohan Lal v. Union of
India, (1957) 1 SCC 439 has held that a writ of mandamus does
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
18/34
not ordinarily issue against a private individual to restore
possession of immovable property, unless it is conclusively
proved that the State authorities and the private party had
actively colluded to unlawfully deprive a citizen of his rights,
rendering the entire transaction merely colourable. Applying the
aforesaid binding principle to the factual matrix of the present
case, this Court finds that while the petitioner has vehemently
alleged collusion between the respondent authorities and
Respondent No. 7, such active collusion remains a highly
disputed question of fact which has not been conclusively
established on the face of the present writ record. The materials
available before this Court are insufficient to conduct a summary
adjudication on the exact nature of the understanding, if any,
between the State machinery and the private respondent.
37. Furthermore, it is a cardinal principle of writ
jurisprudence that a High Court, while exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, shall not embark upon a roving inquiry to adjudicate
highly disputed questions of title, possession, or family partition.
When a substantive civil suit is already pending between the
parties for the very same cause of action, a parallel relief for
restoration of possession cannot be entertained or granted by a
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
19/34
Writ Court.
38. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner seeking a writ
of mandamus for the restoration and recovery of possession is
hereby declined. The parties are relegated to the pending civil
proceedings in Title Suit No. 357 of 2014. The competent Civil
Court at Nawada is directed to proceed with the adjudication of
the said suit on its own merits, based on the evidence adduced,
strictly in accordance with law, and without being influenced by
any summary orders passed by the DCLR or the revenue
authorities.
Second relief:
39. The second relief sought by the petitioner relates to
the award of compensation on account of the allegedly illegal
demolition of his dwelling house.
40. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the
demolition of his sole dwelling house was carried out without
any lawful order or authoritative mandate. Learned counsel for
the petitioner vehemently argued that such forcible demolition is
a blatant infraction of the fundamental right to life and shelter
under Article 21, as well as the protection against deprivation of
property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
20/34
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Olga Tellis & Ors. v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. , (1985) 3 SCC 545 , and
Chameli Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. , (1996) 2 SCC
549 , has categorically held that the right to life guaranteed under
Article 21 encompasses the right to shelter. Consequently, any
arbitrary demolition action depriving a citizen of their property
without the authority of law directly offends both Article 21 and
Article 300A of the Constitution.
Judgment considered by this court
41. This Court has further considered the judgment of this
Court in Asharfi Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2026 (5) PLJR
211 , wherein the observations made in paragraphs 32 and 33
thereof are directly applicable to the facts of the present case.
The relevant portion of paragraphs 32 & 33 are reproduced
hereinbelow: 32.
32. These directions are being given for the
dispensation of justice and to simplify the
procedure so that a genuine person with
absolute Rights/Titles over their lands are not
unnecessarily harassed and disturbed,
especially in cases where there is a serious
dispute with respect to title of the property in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
21/34
question, and the concerned authorities, if
unable to tender a definitive conclusion
about the rival claims made in respect of
such property, cannot proceed for removal of
encroachment/demolition of the dwelling
house of persons without following due
procedure prescribed by law, including the
valid service of notice and hearing the
parties in question and adjudicating the
issue.
33. Since right to shelter is a fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and Article 300A protects the property
of individuals from interference in the
peaceful possession of the land they rightfully
claim, such as passing of orders for removal
of encroachment in khatiyani land, without
following the due process and valid service of
notice, as also examine each case in terms of
the guidelines prescribed under paras 28 to
30 hereinabove. Non-compliance with the
same may warrant liability upon the State or
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
22/34
its instrumentalities of payment of due
compensation for the damages done by
illegal demolitions or excesses resulting from
the arbitrary exercise of powers by the
authorities. The quantum and the mode of
payment of compensation, however, have to
be determined on the basis of the peculiar
facts and circumstances surrounding each
case
42. This Court has further considered the judgment of this
Court in Vishnu Shankar Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar
and Ors. (CWJC No. 6449 of 2017) , wherein the observations
made in paragraphs 34 thereof are directly applicable to the facts
of the present case. The relevant portion of paragraphs 34 are
reproduced hereinbelow: 34.
34. In the present case, the demolition of the
petitioners’ house, without any authoritative
decision and in the midst of an encroachment
proceeding, by a mob cannot absolve the
respondent authorities of their responsibility,
when it was their onerous duty to protect the
house in terms of Article 300-A of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
23/34
Constitution of India. Thus, this Court cannot
lose sight of the predicament of the
petitioners in view of the untimely event in
their lives, and what the Constitution grants
to a citizen cannot be taken away illegally
and arbitrarily by the respondent authorities
43. The core contention advanced by the petitioner is that
the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC)
in BLDR Case No. 44/2015 was strictly confined to the "delivery
of possession" and contained no specific direction authorizing
the demolition of the existing structure. In fact, the very
institution of the case for delivery of possession by Respondent
No. 7 acts as an admission and firmly establishes that the
petitioner was in settled possession of the premises. Furthermore,
the petitioner had challenged the said order before the Appellate
Authority in Appeal No. 8/2016 . It is alleged that during the
pendency of this appeal, the demolition was high-handedly
carried out by Respondent No. 7 in active collusion with the
State authorities.
ISSUE 1: Pendency of Title Suit barring Compensation
44. Submission on behalf of the Respondents: Learned
counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the claim for
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
24/34
compensation. It was argued that the title over the land in
question is deeply disputed, as evidenced by the pendency of
Title Suit No. 357 of 2014 before the competent Civil Court in
Nawada. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot
assert any enforceable right over the land upon which the
dwelling house was constructed, thereby disentitling him to any
compensation.
Opinion of the Court: However, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the aforesaid contention regarding the pendency of a
title suit does not, by itself, non-suit the petitioner's claim for
compensation arising out of the demolition. The question of title
to the land is entirely distinct from the legality of the
administrative action taken in demolishing a residential structure
in the settled possession of a citizen. The limited issue requiring
consideration at this juncture is whether the demolition was
explicitly authorized by a competent statutory authority and
carried out in accordance with the procedure established by law.
ISSUE 2: Delivery of Possession Order acting as
Authorization for Demolition
45. Submission on behalf of the Respondents: It was
further submitted by the respondents that the demolition was a
natural consequence of the DCLR's order for delivery of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
25/34
possession. It was contended that since the Appellate Authority
had not granted any interim stay against the said order, the
respondents were well within their rights to execute the delivery
of possession, which inherently included removing the structure.
Opinion of the Court: The aforesaid submission cannot be
accepted. The delivery of possession and the demolition of an
existing residential structure are distinct legal actions and cannot
be treated as interchangeable. The order of the DCLR, as placed
on record, does not disclose any specific authorization for the
demolition of the dwelling house. The mere absence of an
interim stay in the appeal cannot, in itself, confer authority upon
the respondents to undertake an extreme coercive action that was
not authorized by the original order. Moreover, the DCLR
fundamentally lacked the jurisdiction to even direct the delivery
of possession in a matter mired in disputed claims of ownership.
The competent authority is required to act strictly within the
limits of its statutory jurisdiction. The legislative mandate of
Section 4(5) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 is
unequivocal. The provision explicitly stipulates that whenever it
appears to the Competent Authority that the case instituted before
him involves a complex question of adjudication of title, he shall
close the proceedings and leave it open to the parties to seek their
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
26/34
remedies before a competent Civil Court. Section 4(5) of the
Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 is reproduced
hereinbelow:
(5) The Competent Authority, wherever it
appears to him that the case instituted before
him involves complex question of
adjudication of title, he shall close the
proceeding and leave it open to parties to
seek remedies before the competent Civil
Court.
Judgment considered by this court
46. In assessing the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector
Land Reforms (DCLR) under the Bihar Land Disputes
Resolution Act, 2009, this Court has considered the judgment
rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Rina Devi & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , 2014 SCC OnLine
Pat 6828 : (2015) 2 PLJR 476. In the said case, while faced with
a similar factual matrix where the DCLR had ordered delivery of
possession during the pendency of a Title Suit, this Court relied
extensively upon the landmark Division Bench judgment of
Maheshwar Mandal v. The State of Bihar , 2014 (3) PLJR 281,
and observed the mandatory limitations of the Competent
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
27/34
Authority. The relevant extracts from the Division Bench
judgment, as considered and reproduced in Rina Devi (supra), are
as follows:
"22. Similarly, sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the
Act of 2009 also is a mischief monger. Once
jurisdiction of the Competent Authority is confined
to the execution of the orders made or enforcement
of rights accrued under any of the aforesaid six
enactments, sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act
of 2009, by necessary implication, allows the
Competent Authority to entertain matters not
arising out of the aforesaid six enactments and
issues invoking complex questions of adjudication
of title. The complex issues of title can never be
decided in a summary proceeding envisaged by the
Act of 2009. The said sub-section (5) also has the
tendency to convert the power of execution of
orders into the power of adjudication...
The Act of 2009 is clear and explicit insofar as its
scope and ambit are concerned. It is repeatedly
emphasized that the Act of 2009 has been enacted for
enforcement of a right conferred by or accrued under
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
28/34
the above referred six enactments... No claim to a
property or a dispute relating to a property can be
entertained or decided by the Competent Authority
under the Act of 2009 to resolve disputes other than the
ones arising from the above referred six enactments.
Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act of 2009
empowers the Competent Authority to allow the parties
to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of
complex issues of title. Although the said Sub-section
(5) is directory, should be read as mandatory. It shall
be the duty of the Competent Authority to refer the
complex issues of adjudication of title to the concerned
Civil Court having jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate such disputes."
47. Furthermore, this Court takes note of the fact that
Respondent No. 7 has heavily relied upon the Khatiyan and
subsequent mutation entries (Annexure A series) to justify his
claim of absolute title and to support the order of possession
passed by the DCLR. In this regard, it is imperative to refer to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Ahmadulah Zafar Hasan v. The State of Bihar &
Ors. (L.P.A. No. 595 of 2019, decided on 02.03.2021) . In the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
29/34
said case, while affirming the order of the learned Single
Judge who had relegated the parties to a competent Civil
Court despite the existence of a finalized Khatiyan , the
Hon'ble Division Bench reiterated the well-crystallized
principle of law regarding the evidentiary value of revenue
entries, holding as follows:
"It is settled proposition of law that entry
made in Khatiyan neither creates any title
nor extinguishes any title, as such, the
learned Single Judge has rightly observed
appellant to take recourse to Civil Court of
competent jurisdiction for declaration of his
right, title and possession over the land in
dispute.
ISSUE 3: State Authorities acting as "Mute Spectators"
48. Submission on behalf of the State: Learned counsel
for the State sought to distance the State apparatus from the
demolition by submitting that the authorities merely delivered
possession as per the DCLR's order. It was argued that thereafter,
the police and administration remained present merely as mute
spectators, while the actual demolition of the structure was
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
30/34
undertaken exclusively by Respondent No. 7.
Opinion of the Court: This contention is thoroughly
unconvincing and requires close scrutiny in light of the materials
available on record. The pleadings and materials placed before
this Court indicate that a JCB machine was made available by the
Nagar Parishad, and a massive deployment of 92 police
personnel was present at the site to facilitate the action at the
behest of Respondent No. 7. If the State apparatus, including the
police and municipal machinery, facilitated the process, the plea
that they had no role in the actual demolition is a mere
technicality that cannot be accepted. The responsibility of the
State authorities must be assessed by their active presence,
facilitation, and the circumstances under which the demolition
was permitted to take place.
ISSUE 4: Justification of Demolishing a "Dilapidated"
Structure
49. Submission on behalf of the Respondents: It was
also asserted by the respondents that the structure in question was
merely a dilapidated and unsafe construction erected over
disputed land, thereby justifying its removal.
Opinion of the Court: The assertion that the house was a
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
31/34
dilapidated structure constructed over disputed land does not
justify its destruction without lawful authority, proper enquiry, or
valid notice to the occupant. The materials on record
unequivocally establish that the petitioner was residing in and
was in possession of the dwelling house. The petitioner had duly
raised objections before the respondent authorities and
challenged the LRDC's order before the Appellate Authority. In
the aforesaid circumstances, the demolition of the petitioner's
dwelling house required independent, lawful, and specific
statutory authorization. An order directing the delivery of
possession cannot be stretched or interpreted to serve as a legal
sanction for demolishing a residential structure. Accordingly, the
legality of this high-handed demolition and the petitioner's
corresponding claim for compensation must be viewed seriously
in light of the established constitutional protections, the lack of
specific statutory authorization, and the active facilitative role
played by the respondent authorities.
50. In view of the detailed discussions and observations
made hereinabove, the first relief sought by the petitioner
regarding the restoration of possession is declined, and the
parties are relegated to the pending civil suit. However, the
second relief pertaining to the grant of compensation for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
32/34
unlawful demolition of the petitioner's dwelling house is hereby
accepted and allowed.
51. Taking into consideration that the present matter has
been lingering for nearly a decade, and despite the demolition of
the petitioner's dwelling house, no monetary relief has been
extended to him by the State Government, this Court deems it
appropriate to observe as follows. The Chief Secretary, Bihar
shall ensure the payment of an interim compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the petitioner within a period
of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy
of this order. Thereafter, a proper assessment of the total damages
shall be undertaken by a technical expert or an authorized
representative appointed on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Bihar,
during which the petitioner shall render all requisite assistance.
Upon conclusion of the said assessment, the balance
compensation amount to which the petitioner is legally entitled
shall be disbursed within a further period of four months. In the
event the Chief Secretary forms an opinion that no further
compensation is payable, the Chief Secretary shall either suo
motu (on his own motion) or through an impartial and
independent expert having no collusion with the State authorities
examine the matter. In such an eventuality, a reasoned and
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
33/34
speaking order shall be passed after affording a due opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner and the concerned parties, and the
balance compensation, if any, shall be disbursed strictly in
accordance with law
52. It is a matter of record that the Divisional
Commissioner and District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawada,
are impleaded as Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3
respectively in the present writ proceedings and have sworn the
counter-affidavit defending the actions of the respondent
authorities. Having taken a categorical adversarial stand on oath
justifying the State's action, it would be legally untenable and
contrary to the principles of fair play to entrust Respondent No. 3
with the responsibility of assessing or disbursing the
compensation. Therefore, the task of interim payment and
subsequent assessment must be entrusted to a higher,
independent authority to ensure absolute impartiality.
53. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the
Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar.
54. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands partly
allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6927 of 2016 dt.12-10-2026
34/34
(Raj Kumar, J)
Ashutosh/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 12.10.2026
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date 30.10.2026