Patna High Court
CWJC/8711/2026 of Sunita Devi Vs The State of Bihar on 14 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8711 of 2026 ====================================================== Sunita Devi Wife of Dharmnath Singh, Resident of Village- Indrapuri, P.O.- Indrapuri, P.S.- Tilouthu, District- Rohtas at Sasaram, Bihar- 821308. ... ... Petitioner/s
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8711 of 2026
======================================================
Sunita Devi Wife of Dharmnath Singh, Resident of Village- Indrapuri, P.O.- Indrapuri, P.S.- Tilouthu, District- Rohtas at Sasaram, Bihar- 821308.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar.
2.
The District Magistrate, Rohtas, having office at District Collectorate, Sasaram, District- Rohtas, Bihar.
3.
The Additional Collector, Rohtas, having office at District Collectorate, Sasaram, District- Rohtas, Bihar.
4.
The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Rohtas, having office at Sasaram, District- Rohtas, Bihar.
5.
The Circle Officer, Tilouthu, Rohtas, having office at Circle Office, Tilouthu, District- Rohtas, Bihar.
6.
Atul Kumar, Son of Jitendra Nath, Resident of Village- Indrapuri, P.S.- Tilouthu, District- Rohtas, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shivalika Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr. Government Pleader (05)
======================================================
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
14-07-2026 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Upadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):
(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order passed by the Respondent No. 3 in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 38/2017
Patna High Court CWJC No.8711 of 2026(3) dt.14-07-2026
whereby the jamabandi standing in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has illegally been cancelled.
(ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the Respondent No. 5 from proceeding further with Measurement Case No. 160/2025-26 relating to land situated at Mauza-Indrapuri, Khata No. 24, Plot Nos. 193 and 194 during pendency of title dispute before competent civil court.
(iii) for issuance of an appropriate writ/order declaring that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title or proceed with summary revenue proceedings affecting civil rights and possession of parties during pendency of Second Appeal No. 71 of 2013 before this Hon'ble Court arising out of the title dispute relating to the land in question.
(iv) for issuance of an appropriate writ/order restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question.
(v) for grant of interim relief staying further proceedings in Measurement Case No. 160/2025-26 pending before the Circle
Patna High Court CWJC No.8711 of 2026(3) dt.14-07-2026
Officer, Tilouthu, Rohtas and restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action pursuant to the impugned jamabandi cancellation order
(vi) for grant of any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be availing the appeal opportunity before the appropriate respondent as his contention is that the petitioner was not heard before the order in question dated 03.02.2024 passed in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 38 of 2017 ( Jamuna Prasad vs Circle Officer, Tilouthu).
4. If the petitioner prefers application in next four weeks before an appropriate authority, it will be taken to its logical conclusion at an earliest.
5. With aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
ankita/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U