Writ Petition Dismissed with Liberty to Approach Bihar Land Tribunal Under Statutory Alternative Remedy Requirement

The petitioner challenged three lower-order decisions regarding a "Basgit Parcha" (homestead land document): an order by the Anchal Adhikari, Pandaul dated 31.12.2013 [para. 2(B)]; an appellate order by the Collector, Madhubani dated 12.02.2024 affirming the same [para. 2(B)]; and a subsequent order by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division dated 25.07.2025, which rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction

The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition seeking certiorari to set aside these orders and a mandamus to protect peaceful possession of the land

During the proceedings, the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory alternative remedy

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedy available under the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009

2. Whether the High Court should remit the dispute to the Bihar Land Tribunal for adjudication under its statutory powers

Section 9 [of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009] delineates the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over matters arising from various land-related statutes, including the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 and the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011

Section 15 stipulates that cases which fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction shall stand transferred to it, and its proviso clarifies that the High Court may remit pending writ proceedings to the Tribunal for adjudication

Section 9(2) empowers the Tribunal to decide cases transferred to it by the High Court regarding any revenue or land reforms law

The court noted that while the writ petition was filed under Article 226, the Bihar Land Tribunal had become functional and possessed the specialized statutory jurisdiction to handle revenue and land reform matters

Observing the statutory framework—specifically Section 15—the court found that the dispute was of a nature that the Tribunal is specifically mandated to adjudicate

Consequently, the petitioner’s counsel sought liberty to withdraw the writ and approach the Tribunal. The court agreed that since a specialized alternative forum exists, the matter should be adjudicated there to ensure proper procedural compliance

The court held that if any question of limitation is raised by the authorities, it must be considered leniently, accounting for the period the petitioner spent pursuing the matter before the High Court. All pending interlocutory applications were dismissed