Patna High Court
Alakh Narayan SinghversusThe Union Of India and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in the compensation payment, which must be addressed before the appropriate authority.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of an ancestral land in Jehanabad, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Collector to pay them compensation of Rs.12,25,476 for land acquired by the National Highways Authority of India for the Patna‑Dobhi‑Gaya road. They alleged that the compensation was fraudulently paid to private respondents (sons of the deceased Mahadev Mahto) on the basis of forged documents, with the collusion of revenue officials. The respondents contended that the land acquisition and compensation were lawfully executed after a spot inspection, and that the earlier Land Acquisition Certificate was issued before the division of joint family shares, after which the rightful owners (the private respondents) were identified. The court held that the revenue authorities were justified in their actions and that any grievance of the petitioners must be pursued before the appropriate authority, not through a writ under Article 226. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the payment of compensation for land acquired under the land acquisition law.
- Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the payment made to the private respondents.
- Whether the alleged fraud and forged documents affect the legality of the compensation payment.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- mandamus
- Article 226
- fraud
- NHAI
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10450 of 2016
======================================================
1.1. Manoj Kumar Son of Late Alakh Narayan Singh, Resident of Village -
Mussi, P.S. - Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.
1.2. Pankaj Kumar Son of late Alakh Narayan Singh, Resident of Village -
Mussi, P.S. - Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.
1.3. Vijay Kumar Son of late Alakh Narayan Singh, Resident of Village - Mussi,
P.S. - Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India.
2. The Secretary, National Highways Authority of India, G-5 and 6, Dwarika,
New Delhi- 110075.
3. The National Highway Authority of India, D-63, Sri Krishnapuri, Patna-
800001.
4. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
5. The Collector, Jehanabad.
6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Competent Authority, District-
Jehanabad.
7. The Circle Officer, Makhdumpur Block, District- Jehanabad.
8. Sri Rajnandan Singh
9. Sri Yadunandan Singh
10. Sri Laxmi Narayan Singh
11. Rajdev Singh all sons of Late Mahadev Singh @ Mahadev Mahto
12. Most. Shanti Devi wife of Late Achutanand Singh
13. Arun Kumar Singh Son of late Duwarika Singh, Resident of Village - Mussi,
1. P.O. and P.S. - Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.
13. Jogi Prasad Son of late Duwarika Singh, Resident of Village - Mussi, P.O.
2. and P.S. - Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-9
For the NHAI : Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp nos : Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Roshan Abhishek, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.10450 of 2016(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
5 02-02-2026 Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-9, Dr. Anand Kumar, learned
counsel for the NHAI and Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey
representing the respondent nos. 8 to 13.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for issuance a writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other writ or writs, order or
orders, direction or directions commanding the
respondents particularly the respondent no. 5(the
Collector, Jehanabad) to ensure the payment of
compensation amount Rs. 12,25,476/- to the
petitioner for which 0.30 dec. land of the petitioner
has been acquired by the office of the respondent
nos.6 and same amount has been fraudulently
given by the District Acquisition Officer,
Jehanabad to the private respondents no. 8 to 13
with recommendation of the Circle Officer,
Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad on the basis of
forged documents manufactured by the respondents
no.8 to 13 with the help of the respondents no.6
and 7 and further direct the Collector, Jehanabad
Patna High Court CWJC No.10450 of 2016(5) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
to take legal action against them.”
3. The matter relates to a piece of land mauza – Mussi
Barra, Khata No. 283, Plot No. 891 in the district of Jehanabad.
4. It was to be acquired for the construction/widening
of the Patna-Dobhi-Gaya road (NH-83) and after verification of
the documents, the payments were made to respondent nos. 8 to
13.
5. The stand of the petitioner/substituted heirs in the
writ petition is/are that erroneously, the payments made though
this ancestral property went into their share.
6. The parties have filed their respective responses.
The counter-affidavit of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 which
includes the Collector, Jehanabad is also on record and learned
AAG-9 took this Court to the paragraph-15 of the said affidavit
to show that though earlier, LPC was issued in the name of the
petitioner, it was prior to the separation of the shares of the joint
family with regard to the ancestral land. Once the share went to
the respondents, spot inspection/inquiry took place by the Circle
Officer, Makhdumpur which and after having found bona fide of
the respondents, the payments made.
7. Same is the stand of the respondent nos. 8 to 13 and
he has taken this Court to paragraph nos. 12 and 13 to show that
Patna High Court CWJC No.10450 of 2016(5) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
after the death of Mahadev Mahto, all the sons separated
themselves and this followed the entry of their names in the
register too. In that background, after the notification issued,
rightly, the payments made.
8. Reply to the counter-affidavit of the State-
respondents has been filed by the petitioner and upon perusal of
the same, it is clear that the paragraph-15 has not been
specifically denied by the petitioners inasmuch as only passing
reference has been made that the statement is incorrect.
9. This Court is of the opinion that the respondents
were quite justified in the changed circumstance and the
payments were made after the spot inquiry by the revenue
authorities. If the petitioners have any grievance, the remedy
lies before an appropriate authority/Court and not in a writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. The writ petition fails, accordingly, dismissed.
11. Interlocutory application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…