The Court emphasized that judicial orders of civil courts are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 unless there's a failure of justice.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)

Date : 09-12-2025 Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel for the Intervenor-petitioners.

2. The present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction commanding upon the Respondents to restrain the encroachers to construct house over the land of C.S. Khata No. 784, C.S. Plot No. 2710 and 5310/8817 recorded as Gairmajarua Aam Nadi (river) in C.S. Khatiyan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that construction of the house over the land in question is causing obstruction to the natural flow of the river. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question is recorded as Gairmajarua Aam Nadi (river) in the Cadestral Survey Khatiyan. One Vijay Mishra started constructing boundary wall surrounding the land and a house on the said land. The villagers objected and filed a representation on 01.02.2025 to the Collector, Madhubani, S.D.O., Madhubani and C.O., Rahika. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is pertinent to mention here that the said Vijay Mishra filed a Case No. 5892/2023-24 for mutation of 21.8 decimals of land of Plot No. 2710, Khata No. 784 on the basis of sale deed dated 22.04.2022. The said Mutation case was rejected on 19.03.2025 on the ground that after considering the enquiry report of Revenue Karamchari and revenue record it transpired that the nature of land is Nadi (river) being the source of water.

The Additional Collector, Madhubani vide his order as contained in Memo No. 2194 dated 03.07.2025 held that the claim of the said Vijay Mishra is correct, thereafter Vijay Mishra again started construction of the house over the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector, Madhubani is without taking notice of Order dated 19.03.2025 by which the Mutation Case of said Vijay Mishrta was rejected.

I.A. No. 01 of 2025

4. This interlocutory application has been filed by Vijay Kumar Mishra and Paltu Mishra in the aforesaid writ petition for adding them as party Respondents in the aforesaid writ petition.

5. For the reasons as mentioned in the Intervenor petition, the same is allowed. The Intervenor-petitioners be added as Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the present writ petition.

C.W.J.C. No. 15804 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the Intervenor-respondents submits that the present writ petition has been filed for restraining the Respondent Nos. 7 & 8/intervenors from constructing house over the land in question. The land in question was purchased on the basis of the registered sale deed. Learned counsel for the Intervenor-respondents submits that from perusal of the writ petition it appears that the writ petitioner has sought a direction against the respondents, restraining the Intervenor-respondent no. 7 from making any construction over the land in question. The aforesaid land in question has been recorded as Gair Mazarua Khas land in the Cadestral Survey records of right. In the year 1959, one Shri Krishnanand Jha had entered into an agreement for sale with Zonal Officer of Raj Darbhanga and Sectional Supervisor of Rahika Circle of portions of Plot No. 2710, 5966 and 5310/8817 admeasuring 02 Bigha 10 Kathas land situated in Village- Kakraul, Rahika, District- Madhubani, and paid Rs. 250/- as consideration money and also paid Rs. 07/- for purchase of Stamp for executing Kewala. The said Krishnanand Jha was put in possession but the authorities of Raj Darbhanga in spite of repeated requests did not execute the Kewala in favour of Krishnanand Jha. The said Kr