Writ Jurisdiction Barred Where Statutory Remedy of Appeal Exists Under Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Circle Officer, Bihariganj, Madhepura, in Mutation Case No. 2851 of 2023-24.

The impugned order created a mutation/jamabandi for land at Thana No. 231, Khata No. 1, Plot No. 1284 in favor of private respondent No. 5.

The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011?

2. Whether the period spent pursuing the writ petition can be considered for condonation of delay in filing a statutory appeal?

Section 6 and Section 7 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.

Section 6 prescribes the procedure for mutation by the Circle Officer.

Section 7 mandates that any party aggrieved by an order of the Circle Officer shall appeal to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) within 30 days.

Section 7(2) explicitly empowers the DCLR to condone delays if sufficient reasons are shown.

The Court found merit in the State's submission that a specific legal framework exists for challenging mutation orders.

It observed that Section 7 of the Act provides a "comprehensive procedure" for the DCLR to decide appeals on merit after hearing all concerned parties.

The Court determined that the petitioners must exhaust this statutory remedy rather than approaching the High Court directly.

The Court noted that the DCLR is duty-bound to consider the time spent before the High Court under Article 226 when evaluating any question of limitation.

The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed, the DCLR must accept and decide it on merits within six weeks thereafter, after issuing notice to all interested parties.

The DCLR was further directed to consider the pendency of the writ petition as a valid ground for condoning any limitation issues.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.