Patna High Court

Rita DeviversusThe Union of India

Decided: 31 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court held that the respondents acted without authority and the writ petition is maintainable, directing the acquisition of the land and payment of compensation within a week.

Summary

Rita Devi, the petitioner, purchased a 2.58‑decimal plot of land in Laxmipur and was in peaceful possession, paying rent to the State. On 10‑December‑2025 railway officials entered the land, began soil‑filling and stored materials for a railway under‑pass without serving any acquisition notice or paying compensation. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking an injunction, acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, and compensation, alleging violation of Article 300A. The respondents contended the petition was non‑maintainable and that the petitioner had delayed seeking compensation. The High Court held that the respondents acted without jurisdiction, that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar the Court’s jurisdiction where a fundamental right is infringed, and ordered the respondents to acquire the land and pay compensation within one week.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 despite the availability of a statutory remedy under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the respondents acted without jurisdiction by occupying the petitioner’s land without acquisition proceedings.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an injunction and compensation under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act

Subjects

writ petition
Article 226
Article 300A
land acquisition
compensation
injunction
property rights
railway underpass
natural justice

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1185 of 2026
======================================================
Rita Devi Wife of Shailendra Kumar, Resident of Village- Piribazar, P.S.-
Piribazar, Block- Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.
2. The D.R.M. Eastern Railway, D.R.M. Office, Malda, West Bengal.
3. The State of Bihar Through, Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai Sadar, District- Lakhisarai.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai.
7. The Circle Officer, Suryagarha Anchal, District- Lakhisarai.
8. The S.H.O., Piri Bazar, Police Station, Lakhisarai

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayank Bilochan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-01-2026
Heard Mr. Mayank Bilochan, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar,

learned counsel for the respondets.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ

petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is

reproduced hereinafter:-

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ
commanding the respondents not to construct the
Railways Under Pass, over the land of petitioner which
is Raiyti/Purchase land of the petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ
restraining the respondents not to make any interference
in the peaceful possession of the petitioner.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
2/10

commanding the respondent to first acquire the land
under the provision of land acquisition act and pay the
compensation or vacate the land of the petitioner.
(iv) For any other relief or reliefs for which
petitioner is entitled.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the subject

matter of the dispute relates to land situated at Mauza-Laxmipur,

Thana No. 81, Tauzi No. 5443, Khata No. 62, Khesra No. 77,

measuring an area of 2.58 decimals. The petitioner purchased

the said land from the ex-raiyat, Bhaso Saw, son of Late Kashi

Saw, vide registered Sale Deed No. 4509 dated 25.08.2008, and

thereafter came in peaceful possession of the land. The

petitioner has been exercising her right, title and interest over

the land and has been regularly paying rent to the State of Bihar

vide Jamabandi No. 313 of Mauza-Laxmipur. It is alleged that

on 10.12.2025, officers of Eastern Railway, Jamalpur Section,

along with contractors, entered upon the petitioner’s land,

carried out soil filling and stored construction materials for

construction of a railway underpass near Bariyarpur Railway

Crossing, without initiating any land acquisition proceedings.

Upon objection, the petitioner was informed that the land would

be acquired and was allegedly threatened for obstructing

government work. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no

notice of acquisition has been served upon her nor has any
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
3/10

compensation been paid. Representations dated 17.12.2025 and

18.12.2025 were submitted before the District Magistrate,

Lakhisarai and the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata,

seeking stoppage of the construction and vacation of her land,

but no action was taken. Aggrieved by the alleged illegal use of

her land without acquisition or compensation, resulting in

deprivation of her right to property under Article 300-A of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner

submitted that a representation has already been filed before the

different respondents including the Railway Authorities/District

Magistrate, Lakhisarai (Annexure- P/2 and P/3 respectively)

which has not been entertained till date and seeks to file a fresh

representation before the District Collector- cum - Magistrate,

Lakhisarai for the relief(s) as prayed for in the present writ

petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the State submitted that the petitioner himself is responsible for

not receiving due compensation. Petitioner has himself delayed

and has directly approached this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, the

writ petition is not maintainable.

6. Heard the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
4/10

7. It is commonly seen that the officers having quasi

judicial power often delay in considering the representation filed

by the aggrieved person or they deliberately delay to even

adjudicate those cases where they exercise their adjudicatory

power, while, it is well settled principle of law that High Courts

should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India if an effective and efficacious remedy is

available. Taking into the circumstances of the present case

where fundamental/constitutional right of a citizen is infringed,

this Court must not fail to exercise its power under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

8. It is also well settled principle of law that every

administrative action in want of reason is not sustainable as has

been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates

(P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.

The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinbelow:

“47. Summarising the above discussion,

this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has
always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must
record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons
is meant to serve the wider principle of
justice that justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
5/10

operates as a valid restraint on any possible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-
judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion
has been exercised by the decision-maker on
relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as
indispensable a component of a decision-
making process as observing principles of
natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
(e) Reasons facilitate the process of
judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all
countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
decision-making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial
opinions these days can be as different as the
judges and authorities who deliver them. All
these decisions serve one common purpose
which is to demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been objectively
considered. This is important for sustaining
the litigants‟ faith in the justice delivery
system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial accountability
and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough about his/her
decision-making process then it is impossible
to know whether the person deciding is
faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to
principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions
must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp
reasons” is not to be equated with a valid
decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of restraint
on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in
decision-making not only makes the judges
and decision-makers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.
(See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor32).
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
6/10

(n) Since the requirement to record
reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of
fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of
human rights and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija
vs. Spain33 EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya
v. University of Oxford34, wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the European
Convention of Human Rights which requires,
“adequate and intelligent reasons must be
given for judicial decisions.”
(o) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up
precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of “due process”.

9. The law in this regard has been laid down by the

Apex Court in the Case of M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd.

Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in LL 2021 SC 495,

paragraphs no. 19 and 28 would be relevant in this regard,

which is as under:-

“ 19. While a High Court would normally not
exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy
is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not
by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction
in certain contingencies. This principle has been
crystallized by this Court in Whirpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai19 and Harbanslal Sahni
v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd20. Recently, in Radha
Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors21 a
two judge Bench of this Court of which one of us was a part
of (Justice DY Chandrachud) has summarized the
principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the
High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy. This
Court has observed:
“28. The principles of law which emerge are
that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to
issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii)
The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
7/10

petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the
High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is
available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the
rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition
has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right
protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been
a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order
or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the
vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy
by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case
though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained
when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right
or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of
statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed
questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline
jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is
objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy
requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view
would not readily be interfered with.” (emphasis supplied)

10. Now question arises whether this Court can

exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India in the facts of the present writ petition in case respondents

have acted without jurisdiction. Law in this regard is well

settled by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant

Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited

(Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021). In State of HP v. Gujarat

Ambuja Cement Ltd & Anr., reported in (2005) SCC 6 499 this

Court has held that a writ petition is maintainable before the

High Court if the taxing authorities have acted beyond the scope

of their jurisdiction. This Court observed:
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
8/10

“23. Where under a statute there is an allegation of
infringement of fundamental rights or when on the
undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have
assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the
grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But
normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions
unless it is shown that there is something more in a case,
something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer,
something which would show that it would be a case of
palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to
adopt the remedies provided by the statute. It was noted by
this Court in L. Hirday Narain v. ITO [(1970) 2 SCC 355:
AIR 1971 SC 33] that if the High Court had entertained a
petition despite availability of alternative remedy and heard
the parties on merits it would be ordinarily unjustifiable for
the High Court to dismiss the same on the ground of non-
exhaustion of statutory remedies; unless the High Court
finds that factual disputes are involved and it would not be
desirable to deal with them in a writ petition.”

11. To consider whether the petitioner is entitled for

the reliefs as prayed for in the present writ petition, I find it apt

to refer mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India

which tends to safeguard the invaluable right to property.

“300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property
save by authority of law
No person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law.”
12. The State as per the constitutional provision

cannot disposes a citizen of his property except in accordance

with law and procedure prescribed. The obligation to pay

compensation is not expressively included in Article 300-A of

the Constitution of India can be inferred in that Article. The law

in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in case of Vidaya

Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in

2020(2) SCC 569, I find it proper to quote the para-12.1 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
9/10

12.2 of the said judgment, which are inter alia reproduced

hereinafter;

“12.1. The appellant was forcibly expropriated of her
property in 1967, when the right to property was a
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of
the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to
private property [State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose,
(1953) 2 SCC 688 , which could not be deprived without
due process of law and upon just and fair compensation.
12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental
right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act,
1978, however, it continued to be a human right
[Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 in a
welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article
300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no
person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of
his property except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. The obligation to pay compensation,
though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be
inferred in that Article. [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State
of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1”
13. The above proposition of law has again been

reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar Mishra

(D) and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others, in Civil Appeal

No. 6351 of 2024, reported in (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases

605, is relevant. The paragraph is reproduced as under:–

“ 16. The right to property ceased to be a
fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human
right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under
Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides
that no person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his
property except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. The obligation to pay compensation,
though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be
inferred in that Article. [See: K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1.”

14. In such circumstances, when the question of right
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
10/10

to property as per the provision of Article 300 A of the

Constitution of India comes to the knowledge of this Court, this

Court has no alternative than to direct the concerned authority to

forthwith take action and see that the grievance of the petitioner,

for the relief as prayed in the present writ petition, is redressed

well within a period of one week in accordance with law from

the date of communication of this order.

15. Accordingly, the present application stands

disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.02.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.