IMPORTANT POINT
A writ jurisdiction may be exercised if a fundamental right is violated or if there is an allegation of excess jurisdiction, despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Waliur Rahman along with Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Divya Verma, learned AC to AAG-3 for the State.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"(i) For issuance of any appropriate writ/writs, rule/rules or direction especially in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent concern i.e state authority to restrain from constructing the Govt Aahar over the Raiyatti land of the petitioner for which vide letter No. 4180 dated 04/12/2025 has been issued under the pen and Signature of the Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Jamui, (Respondent No.6) whereby and where under direction has been issued to the selected contractor (Respondent No.7) to construct Govt. Aahar with immediate effect in the light of agreement No. 55F2/2023-24.

(ii) For issuance of any appropriate writ/writs, rule/rules or direction in the nature of Mandamus, restrain the concerned respondents to take any sort of activity pretaining to the land in question till the final adjudication of the present writ application, Petitiones further prays for direction to the respondent authorities to act and consider upon the representation submitted by the Petitioner pursuant to his legitimate Claim along with all relevant documents submitted by him, within the reasonable time at this Hon'ble court found fit and proper.

(iii) For issuance of any appropriate writ/writs, rule or direction especially in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities not to take the forceful possession of the land in question without following the due process of law as described in view of Artic 300 A of the Constitution of India.

(iv) For issuance of any appropriate writ/writs, rule direction as your lordships may found fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner claims right, title, and possession over raiyati land situated at Mauza Telwa, Thana Simultala, Anchal Jhajha having Khata No. 95, Khesra Nos. 834 and 835, appertaining to Jamabandi No. 44. According to the petitioner, the land originally belonged to her great-grandmother, Late Asodevi Thakurain, had came into possession through a hukumnama in 1943 issued by the then landlord of the estate, and whose name was duly recorded in the revenue records; after vesting. The State of Bihar recognized the tenancy, opened rent demand, and rent receipts were issued for decades. The petitioner claims succession to the property along with other descendants and their long-standing possession supported by genealogy records and revenue documents. The cause of action arise when the excavation work was undertaken by the contractor of the Minor Irrigation Division, who were allotted work order vide Letter No. 4180 dated 04.12.2025 for the construction of an aahar under the Jal Jeevan Hariyali Yojana. The petitioner continuation in that without acquisition proceedings or following the due process of law, no one can be dispossessed of the property. The petitioner had submitted several representations before the authorities requesting that no forcible possession be taken. Alleging violation of her constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and absence of any alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking protection of her claimed title and possession over the land in question.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the peti