Patna High Court
Arbind Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court directing that the petitioners may approach a civil court for any further relief.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers, claimed that a bridge being constructed by the State encroached upon their Raiyati land (Khata No. 17, Plot No. 2) in Vaishali district. The State authorities, relying on a revenue report, asserted that the bridge was built on a different plot (Khata No. 241, Khesra No. 01) and therefore rejected the petitioners' claim. The High Court noted that the earlier order had directed the Collector to examine the matter and, if encroachment was found, refer it to the District Land Acquisition Officer for compensation. After reviewing the report and the parties' submissions, the Court found no merit in the petitioners' claim of encroachment and held that the writ petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ and permitted the petitioners to seek relief, if any, in a competent civil court.
Issues considered
- Whether the bridge construction has encroached upon the petitioners' Raiyati land.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether a fresh measurement of the disputed land should be ordered.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- encroachment
- Raiyati land
- compensation
- mandamus
- certiorari
- measurement
- bridge construction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13270 of 2025
======================================================
1. Arbind Prasad Singh Son of Late Kamal Prasad Singh @ Kamal Prasad
Singh, Resident of village- Khajwatta, Police Station- Bidupur, District-
Vaishali
2. Mukesh Kumar Son of Late Kamal Prasad Singh @ Kamal Prasad Singh,
Resident of village- Khajwatta, Police Station- Bidupur, District- Vaishali
3. Sukesh Kumar Son of Late Kamal Prasad Singh @ Kamal Prasad Singh,
Resident of village- Khajwatta, Police Station- Bidupur, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue
Department, Govt. of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, District- Vaishali, Hajipur
3. The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Hajipur, District- Vaishali
4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works department, Works Division, Mahnar,
Vaishali
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali, Hajipur
6. The Circle Officer, Bidupur, District- Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Pratap, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 07-04-2026 Heard Mr. Shiv Pratap, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(I) for issuance of appropriate
order/s, direction/s including a writ
preferably in the nature of CERTIORARI
setting aside the order dated 20.03.2025
passed by the Respondent No.-2 in Misc.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13270 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
2/6
Case No. 04/2024-25 (Annexure P/9)
whereby and whereunder the said
Respondent has rejected the contentions of
the petitioners regarding construction of
bridge on the Raiyati land of the petitioners
bearing Thana No. 270, Khata No. 17, Plot
No. 02 Area 42 decimals situated in Mauza-
Mohanpur in the District of Vaishali. The
Respondent No.-2 in the said order has held
that the construction of the bridge is being
done over Khata No. 241, Plot No. 01 which
is incorrect statement as the bridge has been
constructed by encroaching certain part of
the petitioners land bearing Khata No.-17
Plot No.-2
( II) For issuance of a writ, order
or direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondent Authorities
particularly the Respondent No.-5 to acquire
the encroached land of the petitioners and
determine compensation, in accordance to
Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to
be awarded to the petitioners for
encroaching their piece of land for
construction of the bridge. The
encroachment of land of the petitioners for
construction of bridge has been affirmed by
the report dated 12.03.2024 submitted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13270 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
3/6
Revenue Officer (Annexure P/11).
(III) For issuance of a writ, order
or direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondent Authorities
particularly the Respondent No.-6 to conduct
fresh measurement of the land of the
petitioners bearing Khata No.-17 Plot No.-2,
Area 42 decimal situated Mauza Mohanpur,
Anchal Bidupur, District Vaishali, with due
notice to the petitioners
(IV) For any other appropriate
relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found
entitled in the facts and circumstances of this
case.
3. The petitioner has moved before this Court for the
second time, the last being CWJC No. 5868 of 2024 (Arvind
Prasad Singh & ors. vs. State of Bihar & ors.). The claim is with
regard to:
Thana No. 270;
Khata No. 17;
Plot no. 02 (area- 6 decimal)
Circle- Bidupur;
District- Vaishali.
4. In the earlier round of litigation, the claim was that
a construction is being made by the respondents on the Raiyati
land which has to be interfered with.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13270 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
4/6
5. This Court disposed of the aforesaid case of
Arvind Prasad Singh (supra) on 19.06.2024 with following
observation:
8. Since the situation is still fluid, the
respondent no. 5, the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur
is required to look into the matter inasmuch as:
(i) whether in the aforesaid construction,
the land of the petitioners in any way is coming or
not;
(ii) if the part of the land of the
petitioners has been taken up for the construction,
whether they are entitled to the Corporation or
not?
9. If the Collector, Vaishali after hearing
all the parties and looking into the
documents/reports of the State officials comes to
the conclusion that the lands of the petitioners
come within the purview of the construction, after
passing a reasoned order, the matter be referred to
the newly added respondent no. 8, the District
Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur who
shall decide the quantum of the compensation to
the petitioners after hearing the stake holders.
6. The petitioner thereafter moved before the
Collector, Vaishali for the redressal of the grievance. This led to
the Misc. Case No. 04 of 2024-25 (Arbind Prasad Singh &
ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) before the learned Court of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13270 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
5/6
Vaishali.
7. A report was called from the revenue authorities
and the sum and summary of the said report is/was that the
construction of bridge has been made on Khata No. 241,
new/old Khesra- 01 and not on Khata No.- 17, Khesra No. 02 as
claimed by the petitioners. Based on the said report, the
Collector, Vaishali rejected the claim of the petitioner vide
memo no. 200 dated 20.03.2025 and this Court would like to
incorporate the last paragraph of the aforesaid order which read
as follows:
उपरोकत ननषकरोर से यह सपषट होता है नक कायरपालक अनभयं ता, ग्रामीण
कायर नवभाग, कायर प्रमं डल महनार दारा पु राने पु ल को तोड़कर पूवर से बने
CUT OFF WALL के अनदर ही खाता सं 0 241 खे सरा सं 0 01 जमीन का नकसम
गै रमजरआ आम रासता के पूवीर आर पर पु ल का ननमारण नकया गया है ।
खाता सं 0 17 खे सरा सं 0 02 esa पु ल का ननमारण नहीं नकया गया है ।
फलसवरप आवे दक का दावा सही प्रतीत नहीं होता है ।
अतः आवे दक सं 0 02 दारा दानखल आवे दन को खानरज (Reject) नकया
जाता है एवं वाद की काररवाई समापत की जाती है ।
आदे श की प्रनत सभी सं बंनधत को भे जे।
ले खानपत एवं सं शोनधत
8. Aggrieved, the present petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
though they have come to the conclusion that the construction
has been made on Khata No. 241, Khesra- 01 and not on the
lands of the petitioners. The fact remains that they demolished
the boundary wall.
10. Learned State Counsel has taken this Court to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13270 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
6/6
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 duly
signed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department,
Works Division, Mahnar and paragraph 12 read as follows:
12. That on the basis of the site
inspection and after going through the
relevant records and documents, the
committee has come to the findings that the
bridge in question has been constructed over
Khata No.241 New/Old Khesra-01 and
submitted its report on 28.02.2025.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners
submit that they may be permitted to approach the Competent
Civil Court for the redressal of the grievance as the mighty State
may come up with another theory disrupting their possession
over the land.
12. Learned State Counsel has no objection.
13. In that background, allowing the petitioner to
approach the Competent Civil Court, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…