Patna High Court
Mahesh SawversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court may entertain the writ petition where the respondents have acted without jurisdiction and infringed the petitioner’s constitutional right to property, and therefore ordered the District Collector‑Magistrate to dispose of the representation and ensure compliance with the land‑acquisition law.
Summary
The petitioner, Mahesh Saw, claimed that Eastern Railway had begun construction of an under‑pass on his 5.12‑decimal parcel of Raiyti/Purchase land without serving a land‑acquisition notice or paying compensation. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ to restrain the construction, to compel acquisition with compensation, and to protect his peaceful possession. The respondents argued that the petitioner had delayed seeking compensation and that the petition was not maintainable. The Court examined the principles governing writ jurisdiction, especially where an alternative statutory remedy exists, and held that when a fundamental right to property is infringed and the authority acts without jurisdiction, the High Court may intervene. Relying on precedents concerning the need for reasoned administrative action and the protection of property under Article 300A, the Court directed the District Collector‑Magistrate to dispose of the petitioner’s representation and ensure compliance with the law, effectively granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.
- Whether the respondents acted without jurisdiction in constructing on the petitioner’s land without a land‑acquisition notice or compensation.
- Whether the petitioner’s right to property under Article 300A has been violated.
- Whether the requirement of recording reasons and observing natural justice applies to the respondents’ actions.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 300A
- Land Acquisition Act
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- right to property
- land acquisition
- compensation
- natural justice
- administrative law
- quasi‑judicial authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1186 of 2026
======================================================
Mahesh Saw Son of Late Parmeshwar Saw, Resident of Village- Babua Bazar,
P.S.- Piri Bazar, District -Lakhisarai. At present- 351, Majitha Road,
Dashmesh Avenue, Amritsar (Punjab), PIN- 143008
... ... 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, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayank Bilochan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : AC to SC 15
For the UoI : 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; learned AC to SC 15 for
the State and Mr. Girijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Union
of India.
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
2/10
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ
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 dispute relates to land situated at Mauza-Laxmipur,
Thana No. 81, Tauzi No. 5443, Khata No. 62, Khesra No. 77,
measuring an area of 5.12 decimals. The father of the petitioner,
namely Late Parmeshwer Saw, purchased the said land from the
ex-raiyat, Ramakrishna Prasad, vide a registered sale deed dated
28.05.1992, and thereafter came in peaceful possession of the
land. His name was duly mutated in the revenue records vide
Jamabandi No. 319 of Mauza-Laxmipur, and rent receipts were
issued in his favour. After his demise in the year 2020, the said
land devolved upon his sons, namely Mahesh Saw and Gunjan
Kumar, and pursuant to a partition dated 08.05.2021, the land
fell to the share of the petitioner, who has been in actual,
peaceful possession and has been regularly paying rent. It is
alleged that all of a sudden on 10.12.2025, officers of Eastern
Railway, Jamalpur Section, along with contractors, started
storing construction materials and carried out soil filling over
the petitioner’s land for construction of a railway underpass near
Bariyarpur Railway Crossing, without initiating any land
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
3/10
acquisition proceedings. Upon objection, the petitioner was
allegedly threatened by the railway officials. It is the specific
case of the petitioner that no notice of acquisition has been
served upon him nor any compensation paid. The petitioner
submitted representations dated 24.12.2025 before the General
Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata, and also before the District
Magistrate, Lakhisarai, seeking stoppage of the construction and
vacation of his land, but no action has been taken, compelling
the petitioner to approach 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
4/10
6. Heard the parties.
7. It is commonly seen that the officers having quasi
judicial power on their administrative side 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
5/10
(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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
6/10
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).
(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:
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
7/10
“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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
8/10
High Court if the taxing authorities have acted beyond the scope
of their jurisdiction. This Court observed:
“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. It is also to be taken note of that Article 300A
of the Constitution of India 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. As per the constitutional mandate also, the State
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
9/10
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1186 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
10/10
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
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
is redressed well within a period of one week in accordance
with law from the date of communication of this order.
15. Considering the aforesaid information, the District
Collector- cum - Magistrate, Lakhisarai, is directed to dispose of
the representation filed by the petitioner for the relief(s) as
prayed for in the present writ petition expeditiously in
accordance with law.
16. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
17. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.