Patna High Court
Ramautar Mahto @ Ramotar MahtoversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The heirs are granted liberty to pursue the compensation claim, and the writ petition is disposed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramautar Mahto, sought writs directing the State and NTPC to decide on compensation, interest, and solatium for 2.73 acres of land acquired for a thermal power project, invoking the Rehabilitation Policy of 2007. The respondents, including NTPC officials, contended that most landholders had already been compensated and were not eligible for further payment under the new Act. The petitioner’s sole representative had died, prompting a request to allow the heirs to continue the claim. The court noted the heirs' right to pursue enhanced compensation before the appropriate authority. Consequently, the court granted liberty to the heirs to agitate the matter and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the heirs of a deceased petitioner can continue a writ petition for compensation under land acquisition law
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to additional compensation, interest, and solatium under the Rehabilitation Policy of 2007 and the new acquisition Act
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- solatium
- heirs
- writ petition
- NTPC
- rehabilitation policy
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1359 of 2018
======================================================
Ramautar Mahto @ Ramotar Mahto Son of Late Puna Mahato, resident of
Village- Kanhaipur, P.S.- Mokama, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Union of India through the Secretary, Energy Department, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Patna Bihar.
4. The Collector, Patna, District Patna.
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
6. The Chief General Manager, East, Zone, N.T.P.C. Patna.
7. The General Manager, N.T.P.C. Barh, P.O. P.S. Dstrict- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhim Sen Prasad, Advocate
For the NTPC : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vaibhave Narayan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 12-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of appropriate writ(s),
order(s) and direction(s) commanding the
respondents to consider and take decision
with a reason order in accordance with the
Statute as well as Rehabilitation Policy of
2007 as amended till date with regard of
interest as well as amount of solatium on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1359 of 2018(3) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
due payment of acquired the land having
area of 2.73 Acres of the petitioner situated
at Mauza- Sarhan, Bhage-1 Thana No. 13,
P.S. Pandarak, District Patna in the name of
father of the petitioner namely Puna Mahto
and others by the collector, Patna by the
State Government for Thermal Power of
National Thermal Power Corporation Bank
in L.A. Case No. 20/2005-06 and
accordingly indemnity Bond was submitted
by the petitioner and for direction to other
relief(s) for which the petitioner is legally
entitled..
3. The counter affidavit of respondents no. 6 and 7
who are officials of National Thermal Power Corporation, Barh,
Patna is on record, according to which, most of the land holders
have been paid compensation and they are not entitled to the
payments under new Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
sole petitioner is no more and in view of the aforesaid counter
affidavit that has come from the NTPC , liberty be granted to the
heirs to agitate the matter, if they so want, as admittedly, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1359 of 2018(3) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
family was not satisfied with the compensation amount granted
earlier.
5. Granting liberty to the heirs, as the sole petitioner
is no more, to agitate the matter before an appropriate
authority/Court for enhanced compensation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…