Patna High Court

Ranjeet SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 29 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The High Court held that the State must honor the petitioner’s right to property under Article 300A and order immediate compliance with land acquisition and compensation procedures.

Summary

The petitioner, Ranjeet Singh, claimed ownership and possession of raiyatti land in Jamui district, asserting that the land had been in his family since 1943 and was recorded in revenue records. The State of Bihar, through various officials, authorized construction of a government aahar on the land without completing land acquisition or paying compensation. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to restrain the construction, halt any further activity, and prevent forcible possession, invoking Article 300A of the Constitution. The State argued that the petitioner had delayed seeking compensation and that the petition was not maintainable. The High Court held that the petitioner’s fundamental right to property under Article 300A was being infringed and that the administrative authorities had failed to follow due process, directing them to provide the necessary revenue records, process compensation, and complete payment within stipulated timeframes, thereby disposing of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection of his claimed title and possession under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Whether the State authorities can proceed with construction on the land without completing land acquisition and paying compensation.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of alternative statutory remedies.
Whether the administrative authorities are required to record reasons for their decisions and comply with principles of natural justice.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 300A

Subjects

right to property
Article 300A
land acquisition
compensation
writ jurisdiction
natural justice
administrative law
mandamus

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1201 of 2026
======================================================
Ranjeet Singh S/o Kameshwar Singh, Resident of Vill Tola Telwa Bazar,
Durga Temple Road, PS Simultala, District Jamui, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Jamui, Bihar.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Jamui.
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (DCLR), Jamui, Bihar.
5. The Circle Officer, Jhajha, District Jamui, Bihar.
6. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Jamui.
7. Kartik Yadav, Resident of Vill Taraun, PS Sono, Distt Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Waliur Rahman, Advocate
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Divya Verma, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
Heard Mr. Waliur Rahman along with Mr. Ranjeet

Kumar Singh, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and Mrs. Divya Verma, learned AC to AAG-3 for the

State.

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

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

reproduced hereinafter:-

"(i) For issuance of any appropriate writ/writs,
rule/rules or direction especially in the nature of
Mandamus, directing the respondent concern i.e state
authority to restrain from constructing the Govt Aahar over
the Raiyatti land of the petitioner for which vide letter No.
4180 dated 04/12/2025 has been issued under the pen and
Signature of the Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation
Division Jamui, (Respondent No.6) whereby and where
under direction has been issued to the selected contractor
(Respondent No.7) to construct Govt. Aahar with immediate
effect in the light of agreement No. 55F2/2023-24.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
2/12

(ii) For issuance of any appropriate writ/writs,
rule/rules or direction in the nature of Mandamus, restrain
the concerned respondents to take any sort of activity
pretaining to the land in question till the final adjudication
of the present writ application, Petitiones further prays for
direction to the respondent authorities to act and consider
upon the representation submitted by the Petitioner
pursuant to his legitimate Claim along with all relevant
documents submitted by him, within the reasonable time at
this Hon'ble court found fit and proper.
(iii) For issuance of any appropriate writ/writs,
rule or direction especially in the nature of mandamus,
directing the respondent authorities not to take the forceful
possession of the land in question without following the due
process of law as described in view of Artic 300 A of the
Constitution of India.
(iv) For issuance of any appropriate writ/writs,
rule direction as your lordships may found fit and proper to
the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner claims

right, title, and possession over raiyati land situated at Mauza

Telwa, Thana Simultala, Anchal Jhajha having Khata No. 95,

Khesra Nos. 834 and 835, appertaining to Jamabandi No. 44.

According to the petitioner, the land originally belonged to her

great-grandmother, Late Asodevi Thakurain, had came into

possession through a hukumnama in 1943 issued by the then

landlord of the estate, and whose name was duly recorded in the

revenue records; after vesting. The State of Bihar recognized the

tenancy, opened rent demand, and rent receipts were issued for

decades. The petitioner claims succession to the property along

with other descendants and their long-standing possession

supported by genealogy records and revenue documents. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
3/12

cause of action arise when the excavation work was undertaken

by the contractor of the Minor Irrigation Division, who were

allotted work order vide Letter No. 4180 dated 04.12.2025 for

the construction of an aahar under the Jal Jeevan Hariyali

Yojana. The petitioner continuation in that without acquisition

proceedings or following the due process of law, no one can be

dispossessed of the property. The petitioner had submitted

several representations before the authorities requesting that no

forcible possession be taken. Alleging violation of her

constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the

Constitution of India and absence of any alternative efficacious

remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking

protection of her claimed title and possession over the land in

question.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner informs that for the relief(s) as prayed for in the

present writ petition, the petitioner has already filed

objection/representation before the District Land Acquisition

Officer, Jamui and the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jamui,

however, both the officers are sitting tight over the

objection/representation of the petitioner and the petitioner has

been deprived from his rightful claim of due compensation for
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
4/12

the land, which has been acquired for the purpose of execution

of a project of Irrigation Department. The petitioner is

concerned for due payment of compensation in respect of his

land measuring total area of 10 acre 32 dismil appertaining to

different khatas.

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 not denied the

fact that other persons in the vicinity have not been paid the 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.

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
5/12

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
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
6/12

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).
(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”.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
7/12

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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
8/12

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. The principle of alternative remedies and its

exceptions was also reiterated in 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:

“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 the Article 300A

of the Constitution of India, which tends to safeguard the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
9/12

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

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”
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
10/12

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

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. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Jamui, is

directed to call for the revenue records, in respect of the lands

acquired, from the office of the Circle Officer, Jhajha.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
11/12

16. The Circle Officer is directed to forthwith appear

before the District Land Acquisition Officer along with all the

revenue records relating to the land, which has been acquired

for the project, which has been undertaken by the Irrigation

Department.

17. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Jamui, is

directed to make the required forms available to the petitioner

and see that all the formalities in applying for the compensation

is fulfilled and if any assistance is required to the petitioner, he

must provide all the assistance to the petitioner in that regard.

18. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Jamui, after

making payment of required compensation amount forthwith to

the petitioner as per the present value in the area on the basis of

MVR determined in that regard, give information to the District

Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jamui well within a period of three

weeks from the date of communication of this order that he has

made payment of entire required amount of compensation to the

petitioner in accordance with law so that the petitioner may not

be harassed.

19. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector must

ensure that Land Acquisition Officer make payment of the

compensation to the petitioner well within a period of three
Patna High Court CWJC No.1201 of 2026 dt.29-01-2026
12/12

weeks from the date of communication of this order, or the

District Magistrate-cum-Collector will be held solely

responsible for not complying with the order of this Court.

20. With aforesaid observation/direction, the present

writ petition stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.02.2026
Transmission Date N/A

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…