Patna HC quashes encroachment order that ignored objections the High Court had asked for
Justice Alok Kumar quashed a Circle Officer order of 5 March 2024 against Patna residents told to clear alleged public land. It said nothing on the objections they filed under an earlier High Court order, and a summary order without reasons cannot take property under Article 300A.
A Circle Officer in Patna passed a final order against residents accused of encroaching on public land. It said nothing about the objections they had filed, which the High Court had earlier allowed them to file. The Patna High Court has now quashed it and sent the matter back for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Justice Alok Kumar allowed two writ petitions together, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 5298 and 4839 of 2024. They were filed by residents of Kankarbagh and Malahipakri in Patna against the State of Bihar, the District Collector and the Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif.
Notices to clear land by 21 March
The residents were served with notices dated 5 March 2024 in Land Encroachment Case No. 07/2023-24. In the first petition, Ravindra Kumar and Naresh Razzak, also known as Naresh Prasad, were told to remove an alleged encroachment on Plot No. 274, 315 square feet, by 21 March 2024.
The notice warned that otherwise it would be removed by force, and that they were liable to punishment under the Indian Penal Code. In the second petition, six residents of the 90 feet road area were told to clear their land within 15 days, or face the penalty under Section 188 of the Code.
The residents said these were homes they had bought and built on. Ravindra Kumar’s wife, Anju Kumari, had bought her portion by a registered sale deed of 5 December 2015, and her name was mutated in 2017. Naresh Razzak said his joint property was mutated in 1982 and his family had paid rent since.
The earlier order they relied on
This was not the first round. An earlier notice in Land Encroachment Case No. 07/2021-22 had been challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 2080 of 2022. On 29 November 2022 the High Court disposed of that case with liberty to file replies within four weeks.
It directed the Circle Officer to consider the replies and pass a final order under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, in accordance with law. Status quo was to be maintained meanwhile. The second group of petitioners said the court also quashed the earlier notices under Section 6(2).
They said they filed objections, and in January 2024 received a notice under Section 3(1), to which they replied on 10 February 2024. Then, they said, the notice of 5 March 2024 arrived without any hearing.
What the residents argued
The petitioners said no mandatory Section 3 notice had been issued, and cited Shailesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2019) for the rule that at least two weeks to appear is mandatory. They said the notice defied the status quo order and that Case No. 07/2021-22 had no final order.
They added that they had applied on 12 March 2024 for a certified copy of the final order, so they could appeal to the Collector, but it was not supplied. They said the action violated Article 300A, under which no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law.
The second group said the land was raiyati, as shown by khatian, rent receipts and the jamabandi register. They said the State had not shown it was public land, and the measurement of plots 1150 and 1151 was not scientific. They cited Rekha Singh v. State of Bihar and Hafiza Khatoon v. State of Bihar.
What the State argued
The State said the final order was passed on 5 March 2024 after the residents’ objections, and the notices followed it. It said the land was public. It cited a Circle Amin report of 20 December 2021, and a memo of 19 August 2021 on measuring the 90 feet road from Malahi Pakri to NH-30.
It said the petitioners’ replies were found unsatisfactory, and that they had an alternative remedy of appeal to the Collector. It added that the final order had been given to them, and that no house had been demolished.
Mr. Sushant Kumar and Mr. Subodh Kumar were the lead counsel in the first petition, for the residents and the State respectively. In the second, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan appeared for the petitioners and Ms. Babita Kumari for the State.
An order that never mentioned the objections
Justice Alok Kumar went to the order itself. The Section 6(1) order of the Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif, was:
“silent on the objection filed by the petitioner” (para 17)
The objections had been filed because a coordinate bench of the High Court had ordered it. The judge held that not considering them vitiates the order. A judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body, he said, cannot pass an order affecting anyone’s rights mechanically, without applying its mind to the objections.
The Supreme Court on giving reasons
The judge then set out a line of Supreme Court rulings on why reasons matter. In Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala (1961), the Court insisted on reasons even for an administrative decision.
Travancore Rayon v. Union of India (1969) gave two grounds. The affected person can show the reasons are wrong, and the duty to give reasons deters arbitrary action.
Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. (1970) said an order cancelling a licence is quasi-judicial and must be a speaking one, and the need is greater where an appeal lies. Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) said reasons must show how the mind was applied, not be rubber-stamp reasons.
Ram Chander v. Union of India (1986) condemned a mechanical dismissal of an appeal. Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital (2000) held that quasi-judicial bodies must reach conclusions on reasons. The judge also quoted from Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010), where the Supreme Court said:
“reason is the soul of justice” (para 22)
Shelter and due process
The judge turned to two recent Supreme Court rulings. In Zulfiquar Haider v. State of U.P. (2025) the Court held that the right to shelter is part of Article 21 and can be taken away only by due process.
A show-cause notice must be genuinely served and the owner given a real chance to respond and appeal, it said. It awarded Rs 10 lakh in costs in each case for a demolition that ignored this.
In Rajeev Singh v. State of U.P. (2026), the Court said a lack of reasons points to non-application of mind and handicaps a higher court in testing the order.
Cryptic, and quashed
The judge held that an order that lacks reasons, or shows a failure to apply the mind, cannot legally deprive a person of property under Article 300A. That is all the more so, he said, when it is passed in a summary proceeding like one under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act.
He called the order of 5 March 2024 “cryptic, unreasonable, and arbitrary.” The judgment does not decide whether the plots are public land or the residents’ own. The State’s objection that the residents could appeal to the Collector is not separately addressed.
Order
The order of 5 March 2024 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the authorities to pass an appropriate and reasoned order after giving the petitioners an adequate hearing.
Both writ petitions are allowed. Judgment was reserved on 27 August 2026 and pronounced on 5 November 2026.