Jicho Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11011 of 2025 ====================================================== 1.

Jicho Devi wife of Late Yogendar Paswan, resident of Village-Beladih, P.S.- Harpur, District-Munger 2.

Vuchi Devi wife of Late Rajo Paswan, resident of Village-Beladih, P.S.- Harpur, District-Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Joint Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger 5.

The District Magistrate, Munger 6.

The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Munger 7.

The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Tarapur Block, District-Munger. 8.

The Block Development Officer, Tarapur Block, District-Munger 9.

The Circle Officer, Tarapur Anchal, District-Munger 10.

The Executive Engineer Establishment-cum Executive Agency, Area Engineering Organization Works Division-1, Munger 11.

M/s B.S. Construction, at Jhikuli, P.S.-Sangrampur, District-Munger ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Indu Bhushan, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Prabhat Kumar (AC-06) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-07-2025 In the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- "That this writ application is directed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the responsible respondents for a direction not to construct Panchayat Bhavan under the

2/4 scheme of Panchayati Raj Department under Tarapur Block, at Beladih Panchayat, District-Munger over the land of the petitioners bearing Mauza-Beladih, Khata No. 164, Khesra No.68, Tauzi No.

445, Thana No.249, Anchal-Tarapur, Thana-Tarapur, District-Munger, Area 01 bigha 06 katha 06 dhur which is land of the petitioners after death of Rital Paswan, Yogendra Paswan and Raju Paswan as on 08.03.1938 Maharaj Baneli Raj Riyasat, Bhagalpur through Hukumnama gave 01 bigha 06 katha 06 dhurs land to Rital Paswan, son of Bulaki Paswan and Rital Paswan during his life time cultivated the said land and after death of Rita Paswan two sons of Rital Paswan namely 1.

Yogendra Paswan and 2.Raju Paswan came into possession over the land which was given through Hukumnama to Rital Paswan and after death of Yogendra Paswan and Raju Paswan their wife Petitioner No. 1.-Jicho Devi, wife of Late Yogendra Paswan, and petitioner no.2 Vuchi Devi, wife of Late Rajo Paswan came into possession over the said land, but department of Panchayati Raj forcefully inaugurated the construction work of Panchayat Bhavan on 07.05.2025 over the land of the petitioners under Beladih Panchayat, Block-Tarapur, District-Munger without acquiring the

3/4 land and without giving any suitable compensation, whereas the petitioners have only one land to cultivate and to reside and the petitioners are widow and member of Schedule Cast community."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Panchayat Bhawan was being constructed in Tarapur Block at Beladih Panchayat, District-Munger under the scheme of Panchayati Raj Department over the land of the petitioners bearing Mauza- Beladih, Khata No.164, Khesra No. 68, Tauzi No.445, Thana No.249, Anchal-Tarapur, Thana-Tarapur, District-Munger, area 01 Bigha 06 katha 06 dhur. The said land is ancestral property of Late Rital Paswan and the petitioners are daughter-in-law of Late Rital Paswan. He orally submits that no process of acquisition was taken by the concerned authority over the land in question and the respondents have illegally constructed the Panchayat Bhawan over the land in question. On account of that the petitioners preferred this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that though the petitioners have made grievance but they have not raised their grievance before any competent authority and without approaching the competent authority the petitioners have directly rushed to this Court in its writ jurisdiction, and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

4/4

4. Be that as it may, for seeking writ of mandamus, there must be a demand before the competent authority. At the same time, duty is cast on the concerned public authority. The first ingredient of demand before the competent authority is not forthcoming.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of as not maintainable.

6. However, disposal of the writ petition would not be hurdle for the petitioners to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievance within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioners submit their representation within the stipulated period, the concerned authority is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners after taking into account all the documents and evidences and pass appropriate order as per provision of law without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U