SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4058

PATNA HIGH COURT
PURNENDU SINGH, J
Pintu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through its The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Patna, Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.555 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ram Prakash Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Sajid Salim Khan

Court determined the necessity for amicable resolution or civil remedy for property disputes involving conflicting claims.

Headnote:This case concerns a petition for quashing the order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Collector, Gaya in Mutation Revision No.04/2024-25, where the petitioners claimed rightful possession over a disputed land. The court found that petitioners can resolve the dispute through mediation or by alternate remedies available in civil court. The principal issue was whether the petitioners could substantiate their claims of prior ownership and if the absence of a necessary party affected proceedings. The court emphasized the need for proper remedies available in law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. claim of rightful possession over disputed land. (Para 2 , 3)
2. court's direction to explore amicable or civil remedies. (Para 5)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ram Prakash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned SC 25 for the State.

2. Petitioners have inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-

“I. For quashing the order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Collector, Gaya in Mutation Revision No.04/2024-25 Sanjeet Kumar Singh & Others Versus LRDC Neemchak Bathani & Others Pintu Kumar & Gauri Sanker Kumar, both are son of Satyendra Prasad @ Satyendra Yadav @ Satyendra Kumar by which the petitioners and other have been directed to present along with documents for the land of RS Plot No.724 under RS Khata No.105 Area 1.11 Acre of Mauza Dhan Singhara Thana No.25 Anchal Khizarsarai District Gaya. II. For restraining the respondents including the private respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and/or his family members over the land in question.

III. For any relief(s) for which the petitioners are deemed to be entitled in the eye of law.”

3. Considering the nature of relief as sought for in the present writ petition and considering the fact that petitioners have claimed that they have been deprived of their rightful possession and title over the property in question, having purchased from the vendor / Rajali Devi, who is own family member of the petitioners and subsequently, according to the petitioners, she has sold the land to the private respondents no.7 and 8 and the said Rajali Devi having not been made party in the present writ petition, I find that the petitioners can either resolve their dispute amicably by way of mediation or in alternative, can also avail remedy before competent civil court having jurisdiction to get the registered sale deed declared void, by which they are aggrieved.

4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

5. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top