IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1956 of 2026 ======================================================

Ranjeet Kumar Mehta S/o Sukhi Mahto, Residing at Baluganj, Baranda Rampur, PS Deo, District Aurangabad, Bihar 824202.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

4. The Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

5. The Circle Officer, Deo Block, Aurangabad.

6. Santosh Kumar (Karmchari), Deo Block, Aurangabad.

7. Satyendra Kumar, S/o Residing at Baluganj, Baranda Rampur, PS Deo, District Aurangabad, Bihar 824202.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (11)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

2 26-02-2026 This writ petition, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by the petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar Mehta, seeking following relief(s):-

“i. For appropriate order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately secure and restore the sanctioned plot (Khesra No. 396) for the construction of the PHC, and stay all construction activities on the alternate, non-sanctioned site.

ii. For appropriate order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the classification of the land as Gair Majurwa Malik / Kism-Parti Kadim in the report of the Circle Officer (Patrank 1007) and any subsequent record based on this report.

iii. Direction for the State of Bihar to initiate disciplinary action and a vigilance inquiry against Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for their misconduct and conspiracy with Respondent No. 7.

iv. For Passing any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

2. Referring to paragraphs 6 and 8 of the writ petition, Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the District Administration has officially acknowledged the necessity of constructing a new building for the Primary Health Centre. It is contended that the Circle Officer vide Pratank 1001 dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), confirmed the Additional District Magistrate that the PHC has been functioning in the Panchayat Bhawan for over 20 years and the new construction was proposed on the same plot, earmarking 0.15 decimal out of 0.33 decimal area of the new building.

The Additional District Magistrate, recognizing the overriding public necessity, subsequently issued Patrank 3051 dated 29.07.2024, directing the concerned authorities to “ensure that the construction work of the Additional Primary Health Centre, Baluganj, is carried out on the identified land”, (Khesra 396), and this order (Annexure P-3) explicitly sanctioned the site despite the Circle Officer’s reference to “Gair Majurwa Malik” classification.

3. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the State authorities are now permitting diversion of the sanctioned site from its designated roadside location, thereby acting arbitrarily and contrary to the administrative decision already taken. It is argued that such action adversely affects public access to healthcare services and infringes the villagers’ Fundamental Right to Health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Issue notice to the private respondents no. 6 and 7, on the question of “Admission” under both process, i.e., ordinary as well as registered post with A.D., for which necessary requisites must be filed within a period of one week after Holi holidays.

5. Learned counsel for the State a