Patna High Court
Karu Yadav alias Karu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court set aside the 24‑07‑2021 and 12‑01‑2022 orders and directed a fresh consideration of the petitioner’s raiyatikaran claim, affirming his right to compensation.
Summary
The petitioner, Karu Yadav, claimed that land he purchased in 2008 and held under a valid jamabandi was acquired for the widening of NH‑II in 2010 but he received no notice or compensation. The authorities, invoking a 2014 revenue resolution and Swamitya Satyapan proceedings, rejected his raiyati claim and treated the land as government property. The petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking compensation and setting aside the joint order dated 24‑07‑2021 and the related order of 12‑01‑2022. The court examined the applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act, Bihar Land Mutation Act and settled case law on mutation and title, holding that a sale deed and jamabandi cannot be nullified by executive action without a civil‑court decree. Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned orders, directed the Collector to reconsider the raiyatikaran claim, and allowed the petitioner to pursue compensation.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s raiyati claim and treating the land as government property violates the Bihar Tenancy Act, Bihar Land Mutation Act and constitutional provisions.
- Whether a sale deed and jamabandi confer a title that cannot be overridden by an executive order without a civil‑court declaration.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the acquisition of his land under the land acquisition process.
- Whether the authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in conducting Swamitya Satyapan and denying compensation.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011
- Bihar Tenancy Act — s. 5(2), 6, 7
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- rai yatikaran
- jamabandi
- Swamitya Satyapan
- Bihar Tenancy Act
- mutation
- Article 300A
- jurisdiction
- civil court decree
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12769 of 2022
======================================================
Karu Yadav alias Karu Kumar, S/o Late Ram Sundar Yadav, Resident of
Village-Pandepur, P.S. and District- Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue and
Land Reform, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Aurangabad.
4. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad.
5. The Deputy Collector Land Reform, Aurangabad cum Competent Authority.
6. The Circle Officer, Circle, Aurangabad, Aurangabad.
7. The Union of India through Project Director, National HIghway-II, Rohtas
at Sasaram.
8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12
For the NHAI : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 27-04-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application under article 226 of the
constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for
direction to the concerned respondents to pay the compensation
for the land acquired for widening of National Highway-II vide
notification published way back in the year 2010 by adopting
the due process for compensation for the land of the petitioner,
acquired through valid purchase from a bonafide vendor in
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
2/11
whose favour long-standing jamabandi has been uninterruptedly
continuing but going contrary to the Bihar Tenancy Act,
particularly under sections 5 (2), 6 and 7 of the act as well as
and further for issuance of writ of certiorari for setting aside the
joint order dated 24.07.2021 passed in Swami Satyapan Case
No.22 of 2017-18 by the Additional Collector-cum-Additional
District Magistrate, Aurangabad and the District Collector,
Aurangabad and the connected order recommending rejecting
Raiyati Claim vide order dated 12.01.2022 jointly passed by the
Land Revenue Deputy Collector, and the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Aurangabad, through I.A. No.1 of 2026.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
application is to the effect that the land appertains to khata
number 295 plot number 2747/3566 measuring area 54 square
metre situated at village Shahpur circle Aurangabad, district
Aurangabad, has been acquired for widening of NH-II into a 6-
lane vide a notification, way back in 2010 and thereafter the
petitioner has not been served any notice, nor has an award
notice for compensation been received. The petitioner
approached several times before the concerned authorities, but
after the lapse of 7 years, the authorities concerned have
initiated proceedings for ‘swamitva satyapan’ (Title
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
3/11
Verification) in the light of resolution vide 925 (6)/RA dated
11.11.2014 issued by the Department of Revenue and Land
Reform, Government of Bihar, vide registering Case No.22/17-
18.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Collector, Aurangabad has exceeded its jurisdiction by
passing such an order. That in the grab of swamitya satyapan,
the authority concerned is not paying the compensation and the
concerned authority is intending to declare the land of the
petitioner as government land, though the land has been
acquired through a registered sale deed through Bonafide vendor
whose long-standing jamabandi has been coming since the
abolition of jamindari and vide order dated 24.07.2021 the
entitlement of the petitioner has been disowned in the Case
No.22/2017-18.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the land in question has been acquired by the petitioner through
a registered sale deed dated 25.01.2008 for the land appertaining
to Khata no. 295, Plot no. 2747/3566 situated at Mauza-
Shahpur, from the vendor whose ancestor acquired the land
through the settlement made by ex- Landlord and after abolition
of jamindari, the jamabandi has been created in favour of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
4/11
petitioner and he has been paying the rent since 2008 and since
then the jamabandi has been running uninterruptedly. The
learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there has
been peaceful possession of the petitioner since 2008 and he is
cultivating over the land and in the intervening period, the
authority concern has not interfered with the possession over the
land nor do they hold jamabandi, but when the process of
acquisition of the land for widening NH-II came into force, then
the authorities concerned, in the garb of Swamitya Satyapan or
Raiyatikarn, though not permissible under the revenue law and
in garb of the resolution, have started creating trouble in order to
deprive him of getting compensation. It is further submitted that
the authorities concern without paying compensation or issuing
notices, have forcibly taken the land.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that the authorities concerned have forcibly taken over the land
in the garb of the Resolution 925(6) dated 11.11.2014, for land
ownership verification, the compensation for the land has not
been paid and the petitioner has been running from pillar to post
and thus, the act of the authority concern is contrary to revenue
laws particularly Bihar Tenancy Act and Bihar Land Mutation
Act as well as Article 300 'A' of the Constitution of India and
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
5/11
thus interference is warranted in the interest of justice.
7. The learned A.C. to A.A.G.-12 for the state by
referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Respondent No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 submits that as a matter of fact the
land in question, bearing Khata no. 295, Plot no. 2747/3566,
Area-209 sq. metre situated at village- Shahpur, Thana No. 566,
P.S.+Anchal+District-Aurangabad, has been acquired by the
government for widening NH-II into a six lane Highway. It is
pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid acquired land in
question is recorded in C.S. Khatiyan as gairmajarua malik
land, which is being claimed by the petitioner as its raiyat on the
basis of a sale deed executed in favour of petitioner's uncle in
the year 2008. It is next submitted that in light of the claim of
the petitioner, a proceeding for Swamitya Satyapan was initiated
by the Circle Officer, vide Ownership Verification Case No.
38/2019-20, in which the concerned Halka Karmchari/C.I.
reported that the acquired land in question bearing Khata no.
295, Plot no. 3566, Area- 209 sq. metre situated at Mauza-
Shahpur, Thana No. 566 is recorded in khatiyan as gairmajarua
malik C.S. land and for its raiyatikaran, the petitioner does not
fulfill the terms and conditions as laid down in departmental
Sankalp No. 925 (6)/ Ra. dated 11.11.2014 issued by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
6/11
Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt of Bihar.
8. The learned A.C. to A.A.G.-12 next submits that in
the light of the report of Halka Karmchari as well as the
direction issued for Raiyatikaran of Gairmajarua Malik land,
the petitioner doesn’t fulfill all the terms and conditions of the
department letter and accordingly, the concerned record of
Swamitya Satyapan case no: 38/2019-20 was sent to the Deputy
Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad, with a recommendation
to reject the claim of the petitioner with regard to raiyatikaran
of the gairmajarua malik acquired land in his favour. It is next
submitted that the collector, Aurangabad, who after hearing all
the parties, rejected the raiyati claim of the petitioner vide order
dated 24.07.2021.
9. It is further submitted that the claim of the
petitioner is not based upon the relevant documents, as the
acquired land in question is recorded in C.S Khatiyan as
Gairmajarua Malik Land and the petitioner doesn’t have a valid
ground to contest this writ petition, as this application is devoid
of all merit.
10. After having heard the parties, this Court finds
that the dispute is with regard to the rejection of the claim of the
petitioner to be the raiyat of the land in question. The Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
7/11
Land Mutation Act, 2011 provides for a summary proceeding
for mutation of land records with the sole object of maintaining
updated revenue entries. It is a well settled principle that
mutation proceedings do not confer title and are only for fiscal
purposes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in various judicial
pronouncements, has held that mutation entries neither create
nor extinguish title and the same has been reiterated in the case
of “Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner, reported in
(2007) 6 SCC 186”.
11. At this juncture, this Court is of the view that
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of “Maya
Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014)
3 PLJR, 584” is relevant in the present facts and
circumstances of the case.
12. One paragraph of the aforesaid judgment
passed in the case of Maya Devi (Supra) is to be taken note
of :-
“The result of these three progressive
stages is that if the State wants the
petitioners’ lands or the lands on which the
petitioners have been residing for last 50
years, they must pay due compensation and
take action in accordance with the provisions
of the new Land Acquisition Act. If they
intend to cancel the Jamabandi then it is for
them to move the Civil Court for a
declaration that the alleged settlement
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
8/11
and/or Jamabandi is illegal and cannot be
accepted and let the title of the State be so
declared but till such time the dispute is
resolved, the petitioners cannot be evicted by
the State in any manner nor can just
compensation for acquisition be denied.”
13. In view of such settled position of law, this
Court finds that the order dated 24.07.2021 passed jointly by
the Additional Collector-cum-Additional Magistrate,
Aurangabad and the District Collector, Aurangabad, passed in
Swamitva Satyapan Case No. 22 of 2017-18 has been passed
ignoring the aforesaid settled law, relying upon the Letter
No.925 dated 11.11.2014.
14. In such circumstances, where the
raiyatikaran of the persons like the petitioner is not approved
over the said land and in fact the claim is rejected, it impliedly
also nullifies the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner
way back in 2008. It is not a case where for no reason the land
in question was entered in the name of the petitioner.
15. From the records, this Court also finds that
earlier the Circle Officer had submitted a report dated
24.11.2020 giving his opinion therein that the land is recorded
as gairmajarua maalik in the continuous khatiyan and the
possession of the petitioner for the last thirty years was
accepted, but only on account of the criteria for raiyatikaran
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
9/11
the land was held to be of the Government.
16. It is a settled law that a sale deed executed in
favour of the petitioner cannot be negated by an executive
instruction unless the same is set aside by a competent Civil
court.
17. The petitioner has filed an interlocutory
application, being I.A. No. 1 of 2026, for setting aside the joint
order dated 24.07.2021 passed in Swami Satyapan Case No.22
of 2017-18 by the Additional Collector-cum-Additional
District Magistrate, Aurangabad and the District Collector,
Aurangabad and the connected order recommending rejecting
Raiyati Claim vide order dated 12.01.2022 jointly passed by
the Land Revenue Deputy Collector, and the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Aurangabad.
18. Hence, in view of the discussions made in the
foregoing paragraphs the order dated 24.07.2021 passed in
Swami Satyapan Case No.22 of 2017-18 and the connected
order recommending rejecting Raiyati Claim vide order dated
12.01.2022 are hereby set aside.
19. The I.A. No. 1 of 2026 stands allowed.
20. The claim of the petitioner as far as the
jamabandi standing in his name is concerned cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
10/11
disputed. It has been observed that the State has come out with
a statement that the petitioner had failed to produce concrete
evidence with regard to the creation of jamabandi in his
favour, however, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had
acquired the title over the said land through a validly executed
registered sale deed. Thus, if the State, now, does not
acknowledge the said sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioner, then the only remedy, as held by this Court earlier,
lies before a Competent Civil Court by the State to claim their
title over the same.
21. Considering the aforesaid proposition of law,
this Court finds that the writ petitioner has made out a case for
himself and therefore directs the respondent no.3, the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad, to take appropriate
steps for reconsideration on the question of raiyatikaran of the
land in question and pass an appropriate order, especially
taking into account the fact that the petitioner had been in
possession over the land in question on account of a sale deed
executed in his favour by a person, who claimed the property
to be the ancestral property of her husband.
22. The Collector, Aurangabad, shall be
approached by the petitioner within a period of two weeks
Patna High Court CWJC No.12769 of 2022 dt.27-04-2026
11/11
with a copy of the present order and the Collector, Aurangabad
shall pass an order with respect to the raiyatikaran of the
petitioner, considering the claim of the petitioner afresh.
23. The petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue the
matter further for payment of compensation before the
appropriate authority. The petitioner is also granted liberty to
move afresh, if the grievances of the petitioner is not
redressed.
24. The writ application stands allowed with the
aforesaid observations and directions.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 15.04.2026
Uploading Date 28.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…