Patna High Court
Krishna DeviversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must seek relief from the Collector of Patna, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
Krishna Devi, the petitioner, claimed that a piece of land she acquired by sale deed in 2014 was taken for the extension of Hathidah Railway Station in 2016, but she never received compensation. She alleged she was unaware of the acquisition because she resided outside Bihar and only produced a rent receipt from 2021‑22. The petitioner sought payment of compensation and a fresh acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The respondents argued that there was no record of her being a claimant and that the acquisition had already occurred. After reviewing the submissions, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Collector of Patna within four weeks for a reasoned order, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for land acquired in 2016 for railway extension.
- Whether a fresh land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is required.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable or the relief should be sought from the Collector.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- railway extension
- writ petition
- High Court
- collector
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13031 of 2023
======================================================
Krishna Devi W/o Shankar Mahto R/o-Village-New Chhawani Tola, Ward
No.-11 (Barahiya), P.S.-Barahiya, District-Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.
2. The East Central Railway through its General Manager, Hajipur, Bihar.
3. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar.
4. The Secretary to General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar.
5. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary,Department of Revenue,
Bihar at Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Land Acquisition Officer. Patna.
8. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,- Barh at Dist.-Patna.
9. The Circle Officer, Mokama Block, Mokama, Dist.-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Onkar Nath, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Awdesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC
Mr. Ravinder Kr. Sharma, CGC
For the State : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 Heard Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) commanding the respondent
authorities particularly the Respondent 1st
set to do the payment of land acquisition
proceeding in lieu of acquisition of land
pertaining to Mauza-Maranchi, Thana No.-
19, Tauzi No.-113/459, Khata No.-1390,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13031 of 2023(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
Khesra No.-5173 for an area of 1.25
decimal.
(ii) Commanding the respondents
authorities to do the initiation of fresh land
acquisition proceeding as per the Land
Acquisition Act, 2013 and thereafter do the
payment accordingly.
(iii) Grant of any other
consequential or incidental relief/reliefs, for
which the petitioner can be found entitled
for.
3. The matter relates to a piece of land, as recorded in
the prayer itself, in the Hathidah area, Circle Office, Mokamah
in the district of Patna.
4. The case of the lady- petitioner is that through a
valid transaction/ sale deed dated 22.08.2014, the land came in
her possession, rent receipt issued in the year 2021-22 but for
the extension of Hathidah Railway Station, when the acquisition
took place in the year 2016, no compensation amount was paid.
5. The submission by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that they used to reside away from the State of
Bihar and as such, never came to know about the said
acquisition/payment.
6. Learned State Counsel submits that the acquisition
took place in the year 2016, the first rent receipt is of the year
Patna High Court CWJC No.13031 of 2023(2) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
2021-22 and there is nothing on record to show whether the
petitioner was in the list of claimant or it has been taken by
someone else.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in that
background, submits that it will suffice if her proper
representation with supporting document is considered by the
Collector, Patna (respondent no. 6).
8. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and having gone through the documents on record, this Court
deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition directing the
petitioner to approach the concerned respondent no. 6, the
Collector, Patna in next four weeks who shall look into the
matter and after hearing all the parties, pass a reasoned order at
an earliest.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…