Patna High Court
Bhadra Ram SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed and the reliefs sought are not granted.
Summary
The petitioners, Bhadra Ram Singh and his wife, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash a memo dated 11‑April‑2022 which they allege disposed of their representation without considering the material facts. They requested that the land at Mauza Sahapur (Tauzi No. 5725, etc.) be declared a commercial plot and that compensation be paid at the commercial rate, since the land had been declared ‘do‑fasala’ for a proposed toll‑plaza. The petition also sought consequential reliefs. After hearing counsel, the Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition without granting any relief. No detailed reasoning was recorded in the excerpt, and the petitioners’ reliefs were denied.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 11‑April‑2022 disposing the petitioners’ representation can be quashed by a writ of certiorari
- Whether the land in question can be re‑classified as a commercial plot for compensation purposes
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the commercial rate
Subjects
- land acquisition
- writ of certiorari
- commercial plot
- compensation
- do‑fasala
- toll plaza
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11388 of 2022
======================================================
1. Bhadra Ram Singh Son of Borhan Singh, Resident of- Ward No. 40,
Mohalla- Sarvodaya Nagar, P.S.- Town Begusarai, District- Begusarai.
2. Pawan Devi, Wife of Bhadra Ram Singh, Resident of- Ward No. 40,
Mohalla- Sarvodaya Nagar, P.S.- Town Begusarai, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, The Department of Registration, Excise and
Prohibition of Liquor Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Officer, Bihar National Highway Authority of India, 1 st Floor,
D/63, Sri Krishna Puri, Patna.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.
5. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Begusarai.
6. The Project Director, NHAI Unit, Begusarai.
7. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Begusarai.
8. The Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Begusarai.
9. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Begusarai.
10. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Begusarai.
11. The District Sub- Registrar, Begusarai.
12. The Circle Officer, Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Navnit Kumar, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11388 of 2022(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/2
“1. That, by way of this writ petition, the
petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon'ble court for the
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
order communicated vide memo No.129 dated 11.04.2022
by which the representation filed by the petitioners have
been disposed of without considering the facts/materials
available on record and thereafter a writ of Mandamus or
an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the
respondent Authorities, to declare the land appertaining to
Tauzi No. 5725, Thana No. 520, Khata No. 243 & 244,
Khesra No. 573, 574 & 581 respectively area 2 Bigha 10
Katha, situated at Mauza Sahapur, as a commercial plot
and pay the compensation of the said at the prescribed rate
of commercial plots as said plots are proposed to be
acquired for the purpose of construction of Toll Plaza after
quashing the letter/order/declaration by which the
aforesaid land have been declared as ‘do fasala’ in place of
commercial and the petitioner further prays for other
consequential reliefs for which petitioner is entitled under
the law.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the petitioners want to avail appropriate
remedy in accordance with law for the relief as prayed for in the
present writ petition.
4. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U
Checking your session…