A Darbhanga householder traces his ownership to sale deeds of 1977 and 1978, while the State says part of his house stands on encroached land. The Patna High Court has held that the summary route of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 is the wrong place to settle that.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Patna: An encroachment notice of 8 December 2023 issued to a Darbhanga resident has been quashed by the Patna High Court, which also directed the authorities not to evict him until his title suit is disposed of. The Court held that the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 provides only a summary procedure and cannot be used to settle a bona fide dispute over ownership [Bhartendra Jha @ Bhartendra v. The State of Bihar and Others].
Justice Alok Kumar allowed the writ petition (CWJC No. 5094 of 2024) on 6 October 2026. The respondents before the Court were the State of Bihar, the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Darbhanga, the Additional Collector, Darbhanga and the Circle Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga.
Notice quashed, eviction held back
The operative part of the order reads:
“the encroachment removal notice dated 08.12.2023 issued by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Dharbhanga is hereby quashed, and the authorities concerned are directed not to evict the petitioner till the disposal of the title suit.”
The writ petition stands allowed.
Where the Court drew the line
Justice Alok Kumar leaned on an earlier ruling of the same Court, Smt. Uma Devi Sinha v. State of Bihar (2001 (2) PLJR 587), and set out its holding thus:
“where a serious question of title is involved, it cannot be decided under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. The proper remedy to get the right declared by competent civil court and until the right is declared in favour of the state the person in occupation cannot be evicted by summary proceeding under 1956 Act.”
A coordinate Bench, the Court noted, had taken the same view in Shaila Devi and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (Misc. Appeal No. 318/2014), where the occupant raised a bona fide dispute of title. The Court then summed up the law:
“the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956 provides a summary procedure for quick removal of unauthorised occupants from the public land. It is not meant to resolve complicated title disputes or ownership claims and the same ought to be adjudicated by a competent civil court.”
The petitioner’s account
According to the petitioner, his mother, Ashoka Shastri, bought 2 Katha 16 Dhur of land in Darbhanga under three registered sale deeds dated 1 October 1977, 3 January 1978 and 28 June 1978. He says she had it mutated in her name under Jamabandi No. 1251 and built a pucca house on it in 1979-80. After her death on 27 October 1986 and the later deaths of his father and brother, he says the property passed to him, he had his name mutated, and he has paid rent up to date. He places the house over C.S.P. Nos. 838, 846 and 828.
Encroachment Case No. 3/14-15 began on an Anchal Amin’s report of encroachment over Khesra No. 865. By an order of 23 December 2014 the Circle Officer rejected the petitioner’s claim and treated him as an encroacher, which, according to the petitioner, was done without any actual measurement or notice of measurement. He then filed Title Suit No. 445 of 2019 seeking a declaration that no part of C.S. Plot No. 865 was occupied by him. The suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Darbhanga, where issues were framed on 12 August 2026 and the case stands fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence.
Meanwhile, in a separate writ (CWJC No. 24638 of 2018), the Court directed status quo and a fresh measurement on 18 June 2019. A joint report of 3 July 2019 listed the petitioner at serial number 20 as an encroacher of 1,904 sq. ft., and Notice-II followed on 8 December 2023 over that area of Khesra No. 865. After an interim order in the present writ on 22 March 2024, the Circle Officer stayed the encroachment proceeding by a letter of the same date.
The State’s case
Appearing for the respondents, the State’s counsel submitted that 48 persons including the petitioner had been found to have encroached the land and that the re-measurement was carried out in compliance with the order of 18 June 2019. He argued that the petitioner had filed a title suit while ignoring the statutory appeal available under Section 11 of the 1956 Act. It was also submitted that the online Jamabandi No. 1251 does not bear C.S.P. No. 865, the only plot in the encroachment proceeding, and that the revisional survey of Darbhanga town has not been completed, with no Revisional Survey Khatiyan published for the municipal area.
Which side is right about the plot numbers was left undecided by the Court, since that is the very question pending before the civil court.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates a limit on the State’s own summary powers. The 1956 Act is meant for quick removal of plain unauthorised occupants, and once an occupant raises a genuine claim to title, the State has to get its right declared by a civil court first. Until then, the person in possession cannot be thrown out through an encroachment notice.
The order does not decide who owns the plot. It protects the petitioner’s possession while the Darbhanga civil court hears Title Suit No. 445 of 2019, and leaves the encroachment question for that court to answer.
Case Title: Bhartendra Jha @ Bhartendra v. The State of Bihar and Others [CWJC No. 5094 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Alok Kumar, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, Advocate, for the petitioner; Mr. Prateek Kumar Sinha and Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Additional Counsel to the Government Advocate, for the respondents
