Patna High Court Quashes Land Seizure in Illicit Liquor Case, Says No Proof of Owner’s Involvement
Patna, February 9, 2026: In a significant judgment safeguarding constitutional property rights, the Patna High Court has quashed confiscation proceedings initiated against a woman whose land was sealed after recovery of a small quantity of illicit liquor. The Court held that seizure of property without proof of involvement or connivance is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Division Bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey delivered the ruling in Dayamanti Devi v. State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16759 of 2025).
Table of Contents
Background of the Case
The case arose from Nawada Excise P.S. Case No. 873 of 2024, registered under Sections 30(a) and 44 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
During a raid conducted on confidential information:
- 1.500 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from two accused persons.
- 2.625 litres of illicit liquor was allegedly recovered from a sack hidden in garbage lying within the petitioner’s land.
Following the recovery, authorities sealed the petitioner’s land and initiated Confiscation Case No. 35 of 2025 under Sections 56, 57B and 58 of the Act read with Rules 12B and 13B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022.
Importantly, the petitioner was neither named as an accused nor was any liquor recovered from her possession.
Petitioner’s Arguments Before the High Court
The petitioner submitted that:
- She had no connection with the accused persons.
- She resided at a different location.
- Neighbours often dumped garbage inside the boundary-walled land.
- The alleged liquor was concealed in garbage and not in her possession.
- There was no evidence of her involvement or connivance.
She sought de-sealing of the property and quashing of confiscation proceedings.
State’s Stand
The State argued that the accused disclosed the location of the concealed liquor and that confiscation proceedings were validly initiated. It further submitted that the petitioner had not applied for release of the premises upon payment of penalty under Rule 12B.
However, upon query from the Bench, the State admitted that no material had been placed on record to establish direct or indirect involvement or connivance of the petitioner.
Legal Provisions Examined by the Court
The Bench analyzed:
- Section 30 (penalty provisions)
- Section 56 (confiscation of seized items)
- Section 57B (release of premises upon penalty)
- Section 58 (confiscation by District Collector)
- Rules 12B and 13B of the 2022 Amendment Rules
The Court observed that the statutory framework requires satisfaction that an offence has been committed and that the premises were used for committing such offence.
Crucially, the Bench held:
“Direct involvement or connivance of the owner of the premises in question in illegal use of such premises for stacking illicit liquor is an essential prerequisite for seizure and confiscation of the premises in question or imposing any penalty for release of the same.”
Constitutional Analysis: Articles 14 and 300A
The Court found the action of sealing the premises to be:
- “arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India”
- Violative of Article 300A, which protects the right to property
The Bench categorically ruled:
“The Act, 2016 in no way authorizes the officials to seize the premises in question in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
It further held that the seizure and confiscation proceedings were “without any authority of law.”
Final Directions Issued by the Patna High Court
Allowing the writ petition, the Court:
- Set aside Confiscation Case No. 35 of 2025
- Directed de-sealing and release of the premises
- Ordered authorities to verify ownership and release the property within two weeks
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This Patna High Court judgment reinforces key legal principles:
- Mere recovery of illicit liquor from a location does not justify confiscation of property.
- Proof of involvement or connivance of the property owner is mandatory.
- Administrative powers under prohibition laws are subject to constitutional limitations.
- Property rights under Article 300A cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
The ruling sets an important precedent for cases involving property seizure under Bihar’s prohibition regime and underscores judicial scrutiny over executive excess.
