Writ jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed land-possession facts; parties must pursue the prescribed statutory remedy.

The appellant claimed ownership and possession over raiyati land comprised in Khata No. 45 (old)/11 (new), Plot No. 254, Mauza Kewala, Gaya, purchased through a registered sale deed dated 4 December 1985 and mutated in his name.

He alleged that a PCC road had been constructed over approximately two decimals of his land without acquisition, lawful transfer, or his consent.

The State respondents contended that the road had been constructed with the appellant’s prior oral consent and for the benefit of the villagers.

An enquiry by the Circle Officer recorded that the appellant had initially consented to the construction but later objected when soil was being filled on his land; the report also noted that villagers were willing to compensate him.

The appellant approached the Sub-Divisional Grievance Redressal Authority and thereafter the appellate public-grievance authority. Those authorities granted liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent authority concerning the alleged construction over his raiyati land.

He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge declined to adjudicate the disputed factual questions in writ jurisdiction and granted liberty to approach the competent authority or pursue appropriate civil proceedings.

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to adjudicate, under Article 226, the disputed questions concerning the appellant’s alleged consent, ownership, possession, and the construction of the road over his land?

Whether the appellant had an efficacious remedy before the competent authority under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009, particularly in light of Sections 2(a) and 4 of that Act?

Whether the order disposing of the writ petition with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy required interference in Letters Patent Appeal jurisdiction?

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily unsuitable for adjudicating seriously disputed questions of fact requiring detailed examination of evidence, particularly disputes concerning title, possession, consent, and alleged encroachment.

The Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009, enacted to provide an effective and speedy mechanism for resolving specified land disputes.

Section 2(a) defines the “Competent Authority” as the Deputy Collector Land Reforms or an officer performing those functions.

Section 4 confers jurisdiction over, inter alia, disputes concerning raiyati land, declaration of rights, boundary disputes, correction of revenue entries, and construction of unauthorized structures; where complex questions of title arise, the authority may direct the parties to approach the competent civil court.

The Court found that the parties advanced materially conflicting versions: the appellant denied consenting to the road construction and alleged unlawful encroachment, whereas the State relied on his alleged prior oral consent and the villagers’ willingness to compensate him.

Determining the truth of these claims would require examination of title, possession, consent, revenue records, enquiry materials, and other evidence. Such an exercise was beyond the proper scope of writ adjudication.

The Court further held that the dispute fell within the subject matter contemplated by Section 4 of the 2009 Act, making the Deputy Collector Land Reforms the appropriate initial forum.

The Single Judge had therefore correctly declined to decide the factual controversy and had preserved the appellant’s right to pursue an appropriate statutory or civil remedy.

The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in granting liberty to the appellant to approach the competent authority or pursue another remedy available in law.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as meritless, with no order as to costs; any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.