Badri Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6354 of 2026 ====================================================== Badri Mehta Son of Basudev Mehta, resident of village- Barhatha, Ward No. 17, P.S.- Kishanpur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Land Reform Department of Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary Department of Land Reform Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Supaul.

4.

The Deputy Collector Land Reform Department, Supaul. 5.

The Circle Officer, Kishanpur District- Supaul. 6.

Brahamdev Mehta, S/o Basudev Mehta, resident of Village- Barhatha, Ward No. 17, P.S.- Kishanpur, District- Supaul.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prafull Chandra Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad GP-14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 11-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Mutation Appeal Case No. 671/2024-25 by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Supaul, whereby the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Circle Officer, Kishanpur in Mutation Case No. 2478/2017-18 has been set aside without proper application of judicial mind and for grant of such other relief(s) to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and

Patna High Court CWJC No.6354 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026 2/3 circumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the disputed property originally stood recorded in the name of the petitioner's father and the same was acquired through valid registered sale deeds. It is further submitted that although the petitioner's father has been regularly paying rent and the Jamabandi stands recorded in his favour, the private respondents are claiming right over the property on the strength of forged and fabricated documents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner proposes to avail the revisional remedy against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Supaul in Mutation Appeal Case No. 671 of 2024 (Annexure P/3).

4. Having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner proposes to avail the statutory remedy of revision against the impugned order as contained in Annexure P/3, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ application at this stage.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate revision application before the competent authority in accordance with law. In the event such revision application is filed, the period spent in prosecuting the present

Patna High Court CWJC No.6354 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026 3/3 writ petition before this Court shall be considered for the purposes of limitation, if required.

6. Needless to observe, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties.

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

(Khatim Reza, J) shyambihari/- U