Patna High Court

Parshuram SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 June 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: RAJIV ROY

Holding

The High Court held that the land acquisition for the Patna Metro project is valid, the petition for quashing the acquisition and related reports is dismissed, and the State must update the MVR/Circle rates but compensation need not be conditioned on that update.

Summary

The petitioner, Parshuram Singh, challenged the land acquisition process for the Patna Metro Rail project, seeking to quash the acquisition notification, the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report, the expert committee report, the rejection order of his objection, and the compensation award, alleging violations of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The High Court examined earlier judgments, notably Lalita Devi v. State of Bihar, and a Division Bench decision in Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Bihar, which had directed revision of the 2014 MVR/Circle rates but held that compensation could not be delayed pending such revision. The Court noted that the Supreme Court’s pending order in Lalita Devi would determine the final outcome on the MVR update. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, the land acquisition upheld, and the State was directed to update MVR/Circle rates across Bihar without making compensation contingent on that update.

Issues considered

Whether the acquisition notification dated 17‑11‑2022 under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act is valid despite alleged procedural deficiencies.
Whether the Social Impact Assessment report and the expert committee report were issued in compliance with Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the RFCTLARR Act and the Bihar Rules, 2014.
Whether the petitioner’s objection under Section 15(ii) of the RFCTLARR Act was duly considered and a rejection order should be recorded.
Whether the compensation award under Sections 23 and 30 of the RFCTLARR Act is valid in view of alleged non‑compliance with procedural provisions.
Whether the MVR/Circle rate must be revised before compensation can be paid.

Legislation cited

Bihar Rules under the RFCTLARR Act, 2014
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 11(1), 15(ii), 21, 23, 26, 30, 31, 4, 6, 7

Subjects

land acquisition
RFCTLARR Act
Social Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment
Metro rail project
compensation
MVR circle rate
public purpose
rehabilitation and resettlement

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12846 of 2024
======================================================
Parshuram Singh Son of Late Krishna Singh Resident of Shivpuri Colony,
Chas, Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand, presently residing near Pillar No.3,
Bailey Road, Patna- 800014.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, at
Patna.
2. Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna through
the Principal Secretary, District- Patna.
3. Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Commissioner, Patna Division, District- Patna.
5. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, District- Patna.
7. Circle Officer, Danapur, District- Patna.
8. Patna Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, District- Patna.
9. Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok, District- Patna.
10. Chief Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
11. Director (Work) Project, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road Patna- 800001.
12. Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development
and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the Project Director, Bihar, at Patna.
13. National Mission for Clean Ganga, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of
Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, through its
Project Director, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar- 800001.
14. Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna, Bihar through its Principal
Secretary, Bihar at Patna.
15. Principal Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Bihar at Patna.
16. Archaeological Survey of India through Regional Director, Patna Circle,
Puratattwa Bhawan, J.C. Road, Anta Ghat, Patna- 800001.
17. Regional Director, Patna Circle, Archaeological Survey of India, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anmol Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Abhilsha Kumari, Adv.
For Resp. nos. 14 & 15 : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, AC to SC-26
For PMC : Mr. Prasoon Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
For Patna Metro : Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriar, Adv.
For resp. nos. 10 & 11 : Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
2/13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER

3 16-06-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present application has been preferred for the

following relief(s):

I. that the present writ application
is being filed in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the process of acquisition
published in the daily newspaper
"Hindustan" dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure-
P/10) under Section-11(1) of the Right To
Fair Compensation And Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred
to as "RECTLARRA, 2013 for the sake of
Brevity") which has been initiated under the
signature of the District Magistrate, Patna:
on the ground that the notification dated
17.11.2022 is incorrect, the process is
without following the Social Impact
Assessment (herein after referred as SIA for
the sake of brevity"), the action is in
violation of section-4. 6 & 7 of RFCTLARR
Act. 2013, the notification is itself wrong as
the same on the face of record states that
there is no displacement of people and the
SIA report is totally contradictory stating
there is displacement of people;
II. That the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
3/13

application is being filed in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the report of the
Social Impact Assessment in relation to the
Patna Metro Rail depot Corporation
(Annexure-P/4) dated 27.08.2022; as the
same is in complete violation of section 4, 6
and 7 of the "RFCTLARRA, 2013", there is
no proper report of Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA), even the objection of the
public at large has not been considered, no
proper opportunity of hearing was given to
the public at large as the entire process was
conducted in hurry, there is no finding for
alternative land;
III. That the present writ
application is being filed in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the expert committee
report dåted 11.02.2023 issued under the
signature of the General Manager (Works)
Technical Expert -cum- Coordinator by
which report has been submitted under
Section 7 of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, on the
ground that the initial proceeding of the SIA
report has not been considered, the
formation of the expert committee is not in
consonance with Section 7 read with the
intent and object of the Bihar RFCTLARR
Rules, 2014;
IV. That the present writ
application is being filed in the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
4/13

Mandamus for a direction to the District
Magistrate, Patna Respondent No.5 And
District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna,
Respondent No.6 to bring on record the
rejection order of the objection filed by the
petitioner under section 15 (ii) of
RECTLARR Act, 2013 read with the Bihar
RECTLARR Rules, 2014 and quash the
same;
V. That the present writ application
is being filed in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the award prepared dated
08.06.2024 issued under the signature of
District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna
Respondent No. 6 by which award in L.A.
Case No. 23/2022-2023 for Patna Metro Rail
project has been prepared under Section - 23
and Section-30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013;
on the ground that the award prepared under
Section-23 and under Section-30 is in breach
of Section-30(2) of the 2013 Act, the due
process of law has not been followed as per
the provisions of the law, the entire award
under form IX as per the Rules, 2014 is
incorrect, improper, illegal, no process
followed under section-21 and 26 of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013;
VI. And pass any such other order/
orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and
proper.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
5/13

3. The petitioner owns a piece of land with the

following details:

Survey Plot no.- 87;
Mauja- Sadikpur;
Thana No.- 19
area- 23 decimal;
Block- Danapur;
district- Patna.
4. The Patna Metro Rail Corporation Limited

(henceforth for short ‘the Patna Metro’) is constructing the

East- West Corridor (Danapur Cantonment to Khemnichak) and

North-South Corridor (Patna Railway Station to New ISBT) and

the petitioner’s land fall under East-West Corridor. Though, as

reflects in the prayer portion itself, the petitioner wanted number

of reliefs, now he has come up with limited relief inasmuch as

the petitioner wants disposal of the matter in the light of earlier

cases which stood disposed of by the Patna High Court.

5. Mr. Singh representing the petitioner submits that

in the case of Lalita Devi and Anr. vs. State of Bihar & ors.

(CWJC No. 4562 of 2022) along with other analogous cases, a

Bench of this Court vide an order dated 21.12.2023 held as

follows:

226. I have already held herein above
that since this project is a public project, certain
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
6/13

procedural infirmities shall not render the entire
acquisition process as invalid. However, upon
balancing the public interest vis-a-vis the interest
of land/house owners, who have lost their entire
land, including houses and some business
establishments, the interest of justice demands that
just, fair and adequate compensation be paid to the
land/house owners, including their rehabilitation
and resettlement, as prescribed under the Scheme
of the 2013 Act and also recommended by the
Expert Committee.
227. From the records of these cases, it
appears that the lands have been acquired at two
mauza, i.c. Pahari and Ranipur, For mauza
Ranipur, the rate of the lands fixed by the State
Government is less than the rate fixed for the land
of mauza Pahari. Since the lands have been
acquired in both the mauza, i.e. Pahari and
Ranipur, for one project, therefore, on the principle
of one project one compensation, the lands owners
of mauza Ranipur are entitled to get equal
compensation at the same rate, which has been
given to the land owners of mauza Pahari. Both the
lands are situated adjacent to each other.
228. The question, which, now, requires
consideration is as to how to ascertain the just and
fair compensation, which the petitioners and others
are entitled and at the same time, the Court must
balance the State exchequer by not awarding any
amount, which may be in excess so that not to put
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
7/13

additional burden on the State entity.
229. The price of the land in Patna has
skyrocketed and increased manifold, but the
M.V.R./circle rate of the area has not been revised
for many years. The Court has been informed that
the compensation has been fixed on the
M.V.R./circle rate prevalent in the year 2014.
230. The M.V.R./circle rate is provided
for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, but that
cannot be made a basis to determine the actual
price of the market value of the property. The
purchasers, while purchasing the land, in the sale
deed, quote the consideration amount on the basis
of the M.V.R./circle rate and not the actual price
paid for the purchase of the land.
231. Accordingly, in my considered
opinion, let the M.V.R./circle rate, which has not
been revised since long by the Collector, be revised
by taking into consideration the relevant factors,
including the opinion of the Expert. The concerned
respondents are further directed to re-fix the
compensation amount, payable to the petitioners,
based upon the revised M.V.R./circle rate.
232. It has also been found that
recommendations of the Expert Committee, as
quoted herein above, have not been considered by
the State Government, including the
recommendation of the Expert Committee on the
point of rehabilitation and resettlement,
accordingly, I direct the State Government and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
8/13

Collector, Patna, to consider the recommendation
of the Expert Committee, and to take decision on
the point of rehabilitation and resettlement of the
land/house losers, as per Section 31 of the 2013
Act.
233. The aforesaid exercises must be
completed by the respondents within the maximum
period of six months from today.
234. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, these writ applications are partly
allowed, to the extent indicated above.
235. All the interlocutory applications,
filed in this batch of writ applications, are also
disposed accordingly.
236. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, both the petitioners

(who were not inclined to part away with the land for the

purpose of acquisition) and the State of Bihar as also ‘the Patna

Metro’ who were aggrieved by the direction to update the MVR/

circle rate moved before the Division Bench in LPA No. 45 of

2024 (Ranjeet Kumar & ors. vs. State of Bihar & ors. and

analogous cases).

7. It was taken up by a Division Bench headed by the

then Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice and paragraph 51

onwards read as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
9/13

51. All these principles inhere in
the Act of 2013.
52. The land owners were noticed;
their objections were heard; they were
informed about the rejection of their
objections and; they were also heard with
respect to suggestion regarding other sites.
The compensation amount has been fixed
and the process has been speeded up to
perhaps the maximum possible limit. It must
stand concluded with the net result that the
Metro line should become functional without
any delay. So far as quantum of
compensation is concerned, we do reckon
that revising the MVR/Circle Rates which
are of the year 2014 is urgently needed.
53. However, the direction of the
learned Single Judge that it should be done
first and then compensation be paid, would
not be practical in the sense that updating
the Circle Rates require time and in the
present circumstance, time would be the
essence especially if seen in the context of
the land owners who have been divested of
their land who would require money urgently
for their resettlement.
54. The procedure adopted by the
State in comparing the MVR rates with the
sale deeds exemplars in the last three years
and the highest being given to the land
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
10/13

owners appears to us to be absolutely
justified.
55. While reiterating the
importance of the various provisions of the
Act of 2013, which need to be complied with
to the fullest before acquiring lands. The
Supreme Court in Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation, 2023 Live Law SC 363, ruled
that disturbing the process of acquisition
and compensation would not be appropriate,
looking at the positive impact viz., fast
traffic, saving the cost of acquisition,
practically no destruction of buildings etc.,
and the stage of construction to the extent of
30%. In that case, a concern was expressed
over diversion of various areas of land in
morphological ridge for non-forest
purposes. In the context of PMRP, we find
that disturbing the process of acquisition,
more so when more than 45% of work has
already advanced would not be correct. It
would not only result in huge escalation of
cost but loss to the public exchequer also.
56. We, therefore, find that the
acquisition is for public purposes and the
objections of the land owners are not valid.
However, we have also found that the
manner of computation of compensation to
be paid to the land owners is justified.
57. We, therefore, modify the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
11/13

judgment of the learned Single Judge and
direct that the MVR/Circle rates of 2014
must be updated, which would be an
independent exercise which shall be carried
out by the State after observing the due
process in that regard but the payment of
compensation to the land owners would not
be contingent on such updation as it would
take long time.
58. Thus the appeals on behalf of
the land owners are dismissed whereas the
appeals preferred by the State and the
PMRC are allowed to the extent indicated
above.
59. All the appeals and
Interlocutory Applications are disposed off.

8. Lalita Devi and Another who were part and parcel

of the writ petition and the appeals, thereafter, moved before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil)- Diary

No(s). 39641 of 2025 (Lalita Devi & Anr. vs. State of Bihar &

ors.) and the short order dated 19.09.2025 by the Hon’ble Apex

Court read as under:

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners.
Delay condoned.
3. Issue notice for the limited purpose to modify
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
12/13

para Nos. 53 and 57 of the impugned judgment, passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Patna, so that the affected landowners may seek
determination of the market value of their land in
accordance with the scheme conceptualized under the
Act.
4. Notice be made returnable on 27.10.2025./
5. The acquisition of land is, however, upheld
and the respondent-authorities are directed to continue
with the project without any impediment.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it

will suffice if he is allowed to agitate the matter in the light of

the final outcome of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the aforesaid case of Lalita Devi (supra).

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Bihar State

Pollution Control Board, learned counsel for the State as also

learned counsel representing ‘the Patna Metro’ has no objection.

11. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of

with the observation that the final outcome in the case of Lalita

Devi (supra) pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall

decide the fate of the present case also with regard to updation

of the MVR/circle rate in the district of Patna.

12. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Additional

Chief Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12846 of 2024(3) dt.16-06-2026
13/13

Govt. of Bihar, Patna for his/her perusal and needful in view of

the fact that irrespective of the outcome of the case of Lalita

Devi (supra), the State Government need to update the

MVR/circle rate across the State and it should not be restricted

only to the Capital City of Patna.

13. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/
Munindra Kumar
Sahu

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.