Sikendra Sharma @ Sikendra Mandal vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3707 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010171522024
======================================================
Sikendra Sharma @ Sikendra Mandal Son of Late Sumit Mandal Resident of
Village-Pirnagar, Police Station-Gwalpara, District-Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector-Cum-District-Magistrate, Madhepura.
3. The Circle Officer, Gwalpara, District-Madhepura.
4. The Chairman, the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna.
5. Urmila Devi Wife of Late Bharat Sharma Resident of Village-Pirnagar,
Police Station-Gwalpara, District-Madhepura.
6. Shambhu Sharma Son of Late Mahabir Sharma Resident of Village-Pirnagar,
Police Station-Gwalpara, District-Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Priyanka Raj Lakshmi, SC-2
: Ms. Supragya, AC to SC-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-10-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari direction to the Respondents to
quash the order dated 18.10.2023 passed
by learned the Chairman, Bihar Land
Tribunal, Patna in B.L.T. Case No. 2 50
of 2023 where application bearing B.L.T.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
2/11
Case No. 250 of 2023 filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed.
(ii) For issuance of in the nature of certiorari
direction to Respondents to quash the
order dated 12.08.2014 passed by
Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Madhepura whereby Basgit Parcha
Revision Case No. 3 of 2011 filed by
petitioner has been dismissed.
(iii) For quashing of order dated 08.02.2007
passed by Circle Officer, Gwalpara i
Basgit Parcha Case No. 5 of 2006-07
whereby Circle Officer directed to issue
Basgit Parcha in favour of Respondent
No. 4 and 5.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
land in question bearing Khata No. 491, Khesra No. 2441, having
an Area of 0.01½ Decimal situated at Mauza- Pirnagar, Police
Station- Gwalpara, District-Madhepura and the ancestor of the
petitioner were the owner of the land. The father of the petitioner
Sumrit Mandal got the land mentioned above in his share and after
death of his father, the petitioner and his brothers came in
possession over the land. The petitioner has been living upon the
aforesaid land in question after constructing pucca house with his
family members. The Respondent No. 5 and 6 gave a frivolous
petition in the year 2006, before the Circle Officer, Gwalpara and
one Laxmi Sharma was made as party respondent in the said case.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
3/11
They claimed that they are landless persons and have been living
over the land since long, however the true fact is that the land
belongs to the petitioner and his brothers. They requested the
Circle Officer to issue Basgit Parcha in their favour. The petitioner
was not made a party respondent in the said case and the Circle
Officer, Gwalpara initiated Case No. 05 of 2006-07 and directed
the Halka Karamchari and Anchal Amin/Inspector to submit
enquiry report. He submits that without spot enquiry, the Anchal
Amin submitted an enquiry report, wherein he had given a false
statement that the Respondent No. 5 and 6 have been living upon
aforesaid land and they are landless persons. Vide order dated
20.01.2007, the Circle Officer, Gwalpara directed for issuance of
notice to the land owners and thereafter, a general notice was
published without any date. On 08.02.2007 the Circle Officer,
Gwalpara directed for issuance of Basgit Parcha in favour of
Respondent No. 5 and 6, for the land, on which the petitioner is
residing since long, after constructing his house. He submits that
the petitioner has not been issued any notice, nor he was heard,
since he is the land owner of the land in question and the
impugned order has been passed without holding that the tenant
was a privileged person.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
4/11
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that the petitioner has got no knowledge about passing of the order
by the Circle Officer and when he came to know about the said
order in 2011, only after the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 along with
others came their at the land of petitioner and threatened him to
vacate the land, since Basgit Parcha has been issued in their
favour. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained certified copy of order
passed by the Circle Officer and he filed a revision before the
Collector, Madhepura, which was numbered as Revision Case No.
03 of 2011. Notices were issued to the respondent nos. 5 & 6
herein, who appeared and filed their written statement/reply. After
hearing the parties concerned, including the petitioner and the
respondent nos. 5 & 6, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Madhepura vide his order dated 12.08.2014, proceeded to dismiss
the revision filed by petitioner. He submits that being aggrieved
with the order passed by the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector,
Madhepura, the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 16630 of 2014
before this Hon'ble Court, however the said writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2016 passed by an Hon’ble
Single Judge of this Court, with a liberty to the petitioner to move
before the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, ventilating his grievances.
In terms of the liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
5/11
No. 16630 of 2014, the petitioner preferred B.L.T. Case before the
Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna vide Token No. 703 of 2017, which
gave rise to B.L.T. Case No. 250 of 2023. The said case was
finally heard by the learned Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna,
who vide order dated 18.10.2023 was pleased to dismiss the case
filed by the petitioner and gave liberty to the petitioner to file civil
suit before the competent Civil Court for adjudication of his
grievances.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
before issuance of the Basgit Parcha, the provisions contained in
Sub-Rule 5(i) of the BPPHT Act has not been followed inasmuch
as no any local enquiry was held by the Collector or an Officer not
below the rank of a Sub Deputy Collector deputed by the
Collector. He submits that in terms of Sub Rule 5(4) of the BPPHT
Act and Rules, the Collector is required to prepare a record of
homestead held by a privileged Tenant in form 'G' (Parcha) which
will be prepared in triplicate in each case, with the seal and
signature of the Collector, shall be made over to the Land owner
and the third copy is delivered to the privileged tenants, however
in the present case, no such exercise was done. He submits that
under the Act, no privileged persons or privileged tenant were hold
by the competent authority under section 2(J) of the act, where the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
6/11
relationship of landlord and tenant required. He further submits
that under Section 2(h)(i), privileged person means a person, who
is not a proprietor, tenure holder, under tenure holder or Mahajan
and besides his homestead holds no other land or holds any such
land not exceeding one acre. He next submits that no notices under
Rule 5(2) of the Act was issued to the land owner, who is the
petitioner in the presenet case, which is mandatory in nature and
the order passed by the Circle Officer, Gwalpara is wholly illegal
and unsustainable in view of the fact that the description of the
land was not mentioned, the date was not mentioned and the
notices were not issued to the petitioner. He submits that neither
the Circle Inspector, nor the Halka Karamchari or the Anchal Amin
made any spot enquiry nor went to the spot and submitted a false,
concocted and collusive report. He submits that so far the
respondent nos. 5 & 6 are concerned, they have taken a false plea
with regard to they being landless persons, however the true fact is
that they have a residential house over 7 decimal, after death of
their father Mahavir Sharma and they have also got a land to the
tune of 6 ½ decimal existing on the west of the road. He lastly
submits that the order passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna in
B.L.T. Case No. 250 of 2023 is wholly without jurisdiction, since
the Tribunal without considering the fact that the petitioner is the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
7/11
land owner, went on to record that the petitioner has a remedy of
filing civil suit before the competent Civil Court for adjudication
of his grievances.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the State respondents, submits that the land in question is situated
at Mauza- Pirnagar, having an area of 3 decimal. She submits that
Basgit Parcha Case No. 05 of 2007 was initiated and Basgit Parcha
for 1.5 decimal was issued in the name of Urmila Devi W/o late
Bharat Sharma and 1.5 decimal was issued in the name of
Shambhu Sharma S/o Mahavir Sharma, both residents of Village-
Pirnagar. She submits that the petitioner assailed the same by filing
a revision before the Collector, which gave rise to the Revision
Case No. 03 of 2011. The Collector-Cum-District-Magistrate,
Madhepura called for the Lower Court Records on 23.08.2011 and
the opposite parties were issued notices to file their appearances.
The case was dismissed on account of non-appearance of the
petitioner for a long period, however the order was recalled on
23.01.2013 and the opposite parties appeared and filed their
response. Since the petitioner failed to establish his case or did not
brought on record any document to support his case, the Collector-
Cum-District Magistrate, Madhepura proceeded to reject the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
8/11
revision case filed by the petitioner vide his order dated
12.08.2014. The petitioner assailed the same by filing C.W.J.C.
No. 16630 of 2014, however the same was disposed of with a
liberty to the petitioner to approach before the B.L.T., Patna. The
petitioner filed his application before the Bihar Land Tribunal,
Patna, which gave rise to B.L.T. Case No. 250 of 2023, where
every opportunity was granted to the petitioner to place his case
and to produce supporting documents before the Tribunal,
however the petitioner did not do so and finally, vide order dated
18.10.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal,
Patna, the case of the petitioner was dismissed with a liberty to the
petitioner to avail remedy by filing a civil suit before the Civil
Court of competent jurisdiction. She submits that the order passed
by the revisional authority as well as the B.L.T., Patna do no suffer
from any irregularity.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that a general notice was
issued by the Circle Officer, seeking objections from interested
persons, however no objections were received. Thereafter, the
Circle Officer, Gwalpara by the order dated 08.02.2007, proceeded
to issue Basgit Parcha in favour of the respondent nos. 5 & 6, on
the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Revenue

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
9/11
Karamchari and the Anchal Inspector/Anchal Amin. The petitioner
being aggrieved with the said order, preferred Revision petition
before the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Madhepura, who by
his impugned order dated 12.08.2014 dismissed the revision filed
by the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by
filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 16630 of 2014, whereby
he assailed the order passed by the Collector-Cum-District
Magistrate, Madhepura. The writ petition was heard by an Hon’ble
Single Judge of this Court, who vide his order dated 06.09.2016
gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Bihar Land Tribunal,
Patna for grant of appropriate relief with respect to the land under
dispute. Liberty was given to the parties to raise all the issues of
the facts and law before the B.L.T., Patna. In compliance of the
liberty given vide order dated 06.09.2016, the petitioner preferred
a case before the B.L.T., Patna, which gave rise to the B.L.T. Case
No. 250 of 2023. The learned Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal,
Patna vide his order dated 18.10.2023 passed in B.L.T. Case No.
250 of 2023, rejected the claim of the petitioner and dismissed his
petition. Liberty was granted to the petitioner for filing civil suit
before the Competent Civil Court for adjudication of his
grievances. From perusal of the order dated 18.10.2023, it would
transpire that the learned Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, before

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
10/11
passing the impugned order has considered the submissions made
by the petitioner and went on to record that no substantive proof
was produced by the petitioner to show that the land, for which
Basgit Parcha was issued in favour of the respondent nos. 5 & 6
herein (who were opposite party nos. 4 & 5 in B.L.T. Case No. 250
of 2023) to suggest that the land belongs to the petitioner. On the
basis of the consideration, the learned Chairman, Bihar Land
Tribunal, came to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the
order passed by the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Madhepura
on 12.08.2014. He accordingly went on to dismiss the petition
filed by the petitioner with a liberty to the petitioner to approach
Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for ventilating his
grievances.
8. From perusal of the order dated 18.10.2023, this
Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality found
on the face of the order to suggest that the order is perverse or
illegal. The order passed by the learned Chairman, Bihar Land
Tribunal, Patna has been passed after considering the entire aspect
of the matter and on the basis of the documents, which were on
record and finally, the Tribunal recorded that the petitioner failed
to produce the documents to suggest that the land belongs to him
and has rightly so gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3707 of 2024 dt.27-10-2026
11/11
concerned Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of
his grievances.
9. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date NA