Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted the petitioners liberty to pursue their reliefs in accordance with law, thereby disposing the writ petition.
Summary
Petitioners Pankaj Kumar and Laxmi Kumari challenged the acquisition of 47.97 acres of their land in Gaya district under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that the notification and the 80% compensation awarded were illegal. They sought quashing of the acquisition notification, the related proceedings, and the compensation order, contended that the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act was inapplicable, and requested a fresh proceeding under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013. The court noted a prior decision in Satish Kumar v. State of Bihar and, after hearing, granted the petitioners liberty to pursue their reliefs in accordance with law. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioners to proceed with appropriate legal steps.
Issues considered
- The validity of the land acquisition notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Whether the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act applies to the petitioners' land
- Compliance of the acquisition and compensation with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013
- The legality of the 80% compensation award by the District Magistrate
- The propriety of quashing the acquisition proceedings and ordering a fresh proceeding under the 2013 Act
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- urgency clause
- quashing notification
- mandamus
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10723 of 2014
======================================================
1. Pankaj Kumar and Anr Son of Sri Vijay Kumar resident of Mohalla -
Janakpur, P.O. Buniyadganj, P.S. Muffasil, District - Gaya
2. Laxmi Kumari wife of Sri Ram Ugrah Prasad resident of village - Simri,
P.O. Siripur, P.S. Belaganj, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, Bihar
3. The District Magistrate - cum - Collector, Gaya
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Gaya
5. The District Sub Registrar, Gaya
6. The Director General of Border Security Force, Government of India, New
Delhi - 62
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Manish, SC5
Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 09-02-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) To issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash and cancel the
notification published in Prabhat Khabar
edition dated 31.08.2013 and 01.09.2013
issued under the authority of Additional
Secretary to the Government of Bihar for
acquisition of total area of land 47.97 acre,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10723 of 2014(5) dt.09-02-2026
2/4
wherein 6.24 decimal of land of petitioner
no.1 bearing Plot No.14 and 9.36 decimal
land of petitioner no.2, bearing Plot No.14,
situated at Thana Village- Iguna, Anchal-
Manpur, District-Gaya has P.S.-No.-310,
Muffasil, been acquired, which has been
notified in pursuance of notification vide
Letter No.-15/DLA, Gaya (SSF) 05/13-2009,
dated 19.08.2013 & dated 20.08.2013.
As also for quashing of the entire
proceeding in connection with and
emanating from the aforesaid notification for
acquisition of said pieces of land of
petitioners.
As also for quashing the notices
issued and delivered to the petitioners by
which the District Magistrate Cum Collector,
Gaya has arbitrarily decided to pay 80%
compensation to the tune of Rs.147823-00 &
219958-00 to the petitioner no.1 and 2
respectively which is not a justified payment
decision.
As also to quash all proceeding
emanating from af[5:48 PM, 2/9/2026] Vijay
Singh: which is not a justified payment
decision.
As also to quash all proceeding
emanating from aforesaid proceeding based
on Land Acquisition Act 1894, which is not
sustainable in term of the Right to Fair
Patna High Court CWJC No.10723 of 2014(5) dt.09-02-2026
3/4
Compensation and Transparency in land
Acquisition, Act-Rehabilitation and
Settlement 2013 (in short Act 2013) which
came into operation on 1st day of January,
2014.
(ii) To hold and declare that
invoking the urgency clauses under section
17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as
amended by Land Acquisition (Bihar
Amendment) Act 1960 is not at all applicable
in the case of land Acquisition of petitioners
and other concerned land holders as well.
(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus to direct the respondents to
initiate a fresh proceeding in respect of the
land of petitioner in terms of Act 30 of 2013
and to pay compensation in accordance with
the said Act.
As also to restrain the respondents
from changing the Physical Position of the
land of petitioners.
(iv) To grant any others reliefs to
the petitioners for which entitled to have.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they
shall be taking steps in accordance with law in the light of
earlier orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
CWJC No. 4299 of 2014 (Satish Kumar vs. State of Bihar).
Patna High Court CWJC No.10723 of 2014(5) dt.09-02-2026
4/4
4. The State has no objection.
5. In that background, granting liberty to the petitioner
to do the needful in accordance with law, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…