District Magistrate must adjudicate ownership claims via speaking order before proceeding with government construction on disputed land.

The petitioners claimed ownership of 1 Bigha, 9 Kathas, and 16 Dhurs of land in Pauram Panchayat, Darbhanga, acquired via five registered sale deeds between 1991 and 2005.

Despite mutation and payment of rent, revisional survey entries recorded the land as "Anabad Bihar Sarkar" (Government Land).

The petitioners filed Title Suit No. 66 of 2024 to correct revenue records.

Upon learning that the respondent authorities intended to construct a Panchayat Government Building on the disputed site, the petitioners filed an injunction application before the Sub-Judge.

A representation was filed to the District Magistrate on May 2, 2026, and they approached the High Court seeking a stay on construction pending the Title Suit’s disposal.

1. Whether the respondent authorities should be restrained from constructing the Panchayat Government Building on land claimed by the petitioners via registered sale deeds during the pendency of a Title Suit.

2. Whether the District Magistrate is obligated to verify private ownership claims and revenue records before proceeding with public construction on land marked as "Anabad Bihar Sarkar".

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of administrative fairness and the evidentiary value of registered instruments under the Registration Act.

The doctrine that revenue entries (such as "Anabad Bihar Sarkar") are rebuttable and must be reconciled with registered title deeds and mutation records.

Statutory duty of the Collector/District Magistrate to adjudicate administrative representations regarding property rights under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and relevant revenue manual provisions to prevent the infringement of private property rights without due process.

The Court observed that the petitioners provided prima facie evidence of title through registered sale deeds (Annexure-P/1 series) and subsequent mutation/rent receipts.

It noted that while the revisional survey recorded the land as Government property, a Title Suit challenging this entry was active and the State had already appeared therein.

The Court found that the petitioners’ representation to the District Magistrate had remained pending since May 2026.

Rather than adjudicating the title—which is the domain of the Civil Court—the High Court determined that the executive must conduct a threshold verification of the documents and revenue records to "safeguard the right and interest of the petitioners" before altering the land's character through construction.

The District Magistrate is ordered to conduct a proper verification of sale deeds, revenue records, and hear necessary parties, including revenue authorities. If the claim is found valid, the Magistrate must pass orders safeguarding the petitioners' rights; if rejected, a reasoned speaking order detailing the facts must be issued.

All interlocutory applications were dismissed.