Patna High Court
CWJC/11043/2026 of Saroj Rani Vs The State of Bihar on 24 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11043 of 2026 ====================================================== Saroj Rani wife of Binod Kumar Singh, resident of Village and PO Abul Hasanpur PS and District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11043 of 2026
======================================================
Saroj Rani wife of Binod Kumar Singh, resident of Village and PO Abul Hasanpur PS and District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
3.
The Additional District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
4.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur, Vaishali.
5.
The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hajipur, Vaishali.
6.
The Circle Officer, Vaishali.
7.
The Officer-in-charge, Vaishali.
8.
Meena Devi, wife of Mahesh Mahto, aged about 47 years, resident of Chak Bakhori, PO Madhur, PS Vaishali, District - Vaishali.
9.
Tara Muni Devi, Wife of Shanker Mahto, resident of Chak Bokhari PO
Madhopur, PS Vaishali, District - Vaishali.
10.
Mahendra Mahto @ Bhola Mahto, S/o Late Ramchandra Mahto, resident of village Raipura PO Baluka Ram PS Vaishali District Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr. Vijaya Laxmi Srivastava, AC to SC-23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
24-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:
(i) for confirmation either of the orders dated 24/01/2026 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Vaishali in Mutation Revision case No. 137/2023-24 whereby he affirmed the order dated 16/03/2023 passed in Mutation Appeal Case No. 311/2022-23 passed by Land Reform Deputy Collector, Hajipur, Vaishali in favour of petitioner against the order dated 26.08.22 passed in Mutation case No. 223-R27/2022-23 by the Anchal Adhikari (Circle officer) Vaishali;
(ii) for direction/orders to the Circle officer, Consider Vaishali to consider the matter that the sale deed No. 2513 dated 05/04/2022
executed
by
original Jamabandidar of khata No. 15 khesra No. 315 Area 9.50 dismal with Boundary North Ramdeo Baitha South Gramin Sadak East Meena Devi West Anuth Mahto & others is in existence and possession over the land is continuing in favour of petitioner Saroj Devi then she has every right of record to entry her name in the official Register II of Circle Officer, Vaishali, Hajipur;
(iii) for confirmation of possession on the purchased land of petitioner which was transferred by proper and legal sale deed
No. 2513 dated 05/04/2022 executed in favour of petitioner by the original raiyat recorded as possessor of land Sri Mahendra Mahto which was never objected by the Objector Taramati Devi who raised only objection that the Boundary mentioned in sale deed is incorrect but objection was not supported by any judicial orders;
(iv) for other relief / reliefs as your Lordships may be deem fit and proper..
3. The matter relates to the land in question, the details of which is/are have been recorded in para-01 of the petition.
4. The matter went from the Circle Officer, Vaishali to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hajipur, Vaishali and thereafter, revision was filed vide Revision No. 137/2023-24 (Meena Devi vs. Saroj Rani & Ors) which came to be disposed of on 08.09.2025 and the Additional Collector, Vaishali chose not to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms wherein direction was given to the Circle Officer, Vaishali to do the spot inspection and thereafter, pass a reasoned order.
5. It is to be noted that the aforesaid revision was preferred by the respondent, Meena Devi against the petitioner in which the Additional Collector, Vaishali chose not to interfere despite the order coming in her favour, the writ petition herein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she had apprehension that this may lead to certain adverse order against her by the Circle Officer, Vaishali.
7. Learned State counsel submits that the said apprehension is fit to be rejected. She got an order from the D.C.L.R., Hajipur which was challenged by the respondent no.08 before the Additional Collector, Vaishali. The concerned respondent chose not to interfere with the order and despite that the present writ petition which is fit to be dismissed.
8. Having gone through the facts of the matter, this Court is in confirmity with the submission put forward by the learned State counsel, mere apprehension cannot be a reason to invoke the writ jurisdiction. However, this Court refrains from imposing any cost, the writ petition is disposed of.
Ravi/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U