CWJC/15231/2025 of Raj Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar on 17 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

17-08-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar representing the State and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 4.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s): “(a) For issuance of writ of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the order dated 19.05.2025 passed in Measurement Appeal Case No. 22/2023-24 by learned Deputy Collector

Land Reforms, Barh, Patna by which two amins have been deputed to take measurement of petitioner's land by setting aside/quashing the order dated 02.01.2024 passed in Measurement Case No. 04/2023-24 by Circle Officer, Ghoswari, Patna.

(b) For issuance of further writ of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the Notice dated 05.08.2025 issued by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barh, Patna by which petitioner has been directed to remain present on 28.08.2025 when measurement of the petitioner's land shall be taken by the appointed amines.”

3. The question before this Writ Court is whether a Court after passing an order for a particular mauza can change it when the notice(s) is/are issued. This is the question that has come and needs to be answered.

4. The petitioner claims to be owner of the lands having following details: “Mauza – Ghoswari; Thana No. 40; Khata No. 525 & 559;

Khesra No. 547 & 548; Area 1.58 acre.”

5. It seems that earlier, the respondent no. 4 moved before the revenue authorities for the measurement of the land having following details: “Mauza – Ghosai Gaon; Thana No. 39; Khata No. 525 & 559; Khesra No. 547 & 548; Area 1.58 acre.”

6. The case went on, and ultimately, came to be heard and decided on 19.05.2025 in Measurement Appeal Case No. 22 of 2023-24 (Shri Om Prakash Paswan vs. Circle Officer, Ghoswari & Ors.).

7. It is to be noted that the petitioner was appearing there through his lawyer. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barh, as recorded above, took up the matter on 19.05.2025 and came to the conclusion that the land needs to be measured and accordingly, directed the office to issue notice to the parties.

8. The order dated 19.05.2025 shows that it relates to, amongst other, Mauza – Gosai Gaon, Thana No. 39

(Annexure – P/4 to the petition).

9. This followed the notice dated 05.08.2025 issued by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barh where surprisingly, it records Mauza – Ghoswari (instead of Gosai Gaon) and Thana No. 40 (instead of Thana No. 39). The petitioner challenged it and while issuing notice to the respondents, a Coordinate Bench on 26.09.2025, stayed the further proceeding before the Depute Collector Land Reforms, Barh, Patna.

10. The respondent has appeared and filed an affidavit. The State-respondents have also filed an affidavit.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court to the petition that was preferred by the respondent, Shri Om Prakash Paswan before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in Measurement Appeal Case No. 22 of 2023-24 to show that it relates to Gosai Gaon and Thana No. 39 (Annexure – R/1).

12. Upon query, learned counsel for the respondent submits that actually the matter relates to Ghoswari but erroneously, the word Gosai Gaon has been recorded everywhere.

13. Learned State counsel though argues the case, concede that the 19.05.2025 order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barh records the land in the Mauza – Gosai Gaon and Thana no. 39.

14. Upon further query from the learned counsel representing the respondent as to when the petition shows the mauza – Gosai Gaon which finds incorporated in the order dated 19.05.2025 also, whether any petition was preferred for making necessary corrections either during the proceeding or after the order was passed, the answer is in negative.

15. In that background, this Court wonders how and under what circumstance, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barh himself/herself changed the mauza from Gosai Gaon to Ghoswari and from Thana No. 39 to Thana no. 40.

16. This is clearly misuse of power by the said office and the Collector, Patna has to look into this. He must also summon the concerned officer and check whether he/she is doing such things in other cases also.

17. The facts have been recorded, the erroneous notice has also been taken note of which has to go.

18. The notice dated 05.08.2025 issued in Measurement Appeal No. 22/2023-24 (Shri Om Prakash Paswan vs. Circle Officer, Ghoswari & Ors.) stands set aside.

19. The parties are free to initiate/fight out the battle before appropriate revenue authorities.

20. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

Adnan/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U