Savitri Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.612 of 2026 ====================================================== Savitri Devi wife of Binod Kumar Singh, resident of Village-Chamuchak, Pupun, P.S.-Pipra, District-Patna, Bihar-804453. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Masaurhi, District-Patna. 3.

The Circle Officer, Masaurhi, District-Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Priyajeet Pandey, Advocate Ms. Megha, Advocate Mr. Kaustubh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Standing Counsel (08) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 20-01-2026 Heard Mr. Priyajeet Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) for issuance of an appropriate the writ/order/direction for quashing order dated 15.7.2011 passed in Land Dispute Case No. 6/2011-12 by the deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Darbhanga (Respondent no.2) by which Anchal Amin was directed to demarcate the land of parties though the relief claimed by Respondent no.4

2/4 and 5 was maintainable only in the Civil Court of original jurisdiction;

(ii) for quashing order dated 3.12.2014 passed in Land Dispute Execution case No.

628/2013-14 by which Anchal Amin has been directed to demarcate and deliver possession to Respondent no. 4 and 5 if the land is found in possession of the petitioner.

3. There is no dispute relating to the land as the petitioner has not impleaded any private respondents. Pursuant to the request earlier made, the measurement took place on 11.02.2025 and the parties including the petitioner's husband signed the document being satisfied with the measurement process.

4. Subsequently, it seems, upon a petition preferred by the petitioner before the D.C.L.R., Masaurhi, Patna vide letter no. 748 dated 24.04.2025, the Circle Officer, Masaurhi was directed to do the needful as per the measurement.

5. This followed the letter no. 283 dated 05.08.2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Masaurhi to the petitioner recording that she has possession over the land, a proper measurement has been done without any hindrance and if the

3/4 petitioner so want, can put in her pillar.

6. From the averment in the writ petition, no where it has been stated that pursuant to the said letter dated 05.08.2025, the petitioner tried to fix the pillar and faced any problem.

7. The petitioner's insistence is that the pillars have to be fixed in the presence of the respondents.

8. Learned State counsel submits that the measurement has been done, parties have signed, the Circle Officer, Masaurhi is satisfied that the petitioner's family is having peaceful possession over the land, she is well advised to fix her pillars.

9. This Court is in complete inconfirmity with the submission of the learned State counsel.

10. The aforesaid development that has taken place clearly show that the petitioner without any basis has approached the Court as there is nothing on record to show that pursuant to the direction issued by the D.C.L.R., Masaurhi, Patna as also the Circle Officer, Masaurhi, Patna, they have taken any steps for fixing the pillars.

11. The writ petition, in that background, is disposed of allowing the petitioner to take steps for fixing the pillars, if she so want pursuant to the measurement made in the presence

4/4 of all the parties/villagers dated 11.02.2025 and the last letter issued by the Circle Officer, Masaurhi, Patna. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U