Judicial Review Limited Over State Policy on Public Land Usage: Patna HC

The Patna High Court has slammed the brakes on challenges against state land transfer policies, ruling that judicial interference is impermissible unless executive actions are palpably arbitrary or violate statutory mandates. By upholding the State's right to reallocate public land for essential administrative infrastructure while balancing local religious sentiments, the Court reinforced the narrow boundaries of judicial review in matters of executive wisdom.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Alok Kumar presided over the matter, hearing a writ petition that challenged the State's decision to construct administrative buildings on land traditionally used for religious worship. The petitioner sought to restrain the District Collector and Circle Officer from disturbing the peaceful possession of villagers over land recorded as a local deity's shrine.

Court Observations and Directions

The Court observed that the revenue records classified the land as 'Gair Majarua malik' of the nature 'Paiti Kadim' and 'Ajaan Veer Puja Asthal'. It noted that the State had conducted a proper inquiry and spot inspection before sanctioning the land transfer to the Excise Department. Crucially, the authorities had proposed to transfer only 7 Kathas of the total land, specifically leaving aside 1 Katha and 1 Dhur for the 'Ajaan Veer' shrine to respect local religious practices.

In its reasoning, the Court observed: "The Courts act as reviewers of the decision-making process, and not of the merit, wisdom, or correctness of the policy itself. Judicial review is limited to examining whether the authority exceeded its statutory power or ignored a fundamental rule."

Citing the precedent in Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v. Shakuntala Education & Welfare Society, the Court reiterated that policy interference is not warranted unless the decision is palpably arbitrary. This was further supported by the principle in Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, which established that courts do not examine the wisdom of a policy or the possibility of a 'better' alternative. The bench also referenced DDA v. Allottee of SFS Flats to define the specific grounds such as unconstitutionality or acting beyond delegated powers under which a policy becomes open to judicial review.

The Court has the following directions:

"In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the policy decision of the state, hence, the present writ petition is dismissed."

Background

The dispute originated when Munshi Yadav filed a writ petition alleging that the State authorities were forcibly taking possession of land in Mauza Sarsar, Siwan, to construct a building for the Excise Department. The petitioner contended that the land had been a site of worship for the deity "Ajan Veer Asthan" since time immemorial, as evidenced by a 1919 record of rights. It was argued that the construction disturbed the social fabric and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution of India.

The State, through the District Collector, countered that the land was required for a public purpose specifically for constructing a Women's Barrack, Hazat, and Malkhana. The State highlighted that a formal inquiry (Land Transfer Record No. 01/2020-21) had been conducted, and care was taken to exclude the actual area of the shrine from the transfer proposal to ensure that worship could continue uninterrupted. Since the land was unoccupied and no Jamabandi existed in favor of any private individual, the Court found the State's administrative action to be within the bounds of law and dismissed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4001 of 2024
Case Title: Munshi Yadav @ Mansi Yadav v. The State of Bihar & Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amrendra Nath Verma, G.A.2; Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, AC to G.A-2

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 3332