Patna High Court
Sushil JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish that any land beyond the acquired 1.20 acres was taken without compensation.
Summary
The petitioner, Sushil Jha, filed a writ petition seeking compensation for 25 decimals of land that he alleges were used beyond the 1.20 acres officially acquired for a bridge and earth work on NH‑106. He also requested removal of the alleged illegal construction, a restraining order against further work, and any other relief. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and Union of India, contended that plot No. 88 had already been acquired and compensation paid. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to produce any document establishing the actual area of plot No. 88 or proving that the additional 25 decimals were taken without compensation. Consequently, the Court held that no relief could be granted and directed the petitioner to approach the Collector with appropriate evidence. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the actual area of plot No. 88 and whether the petitioner was deprived of compensation for any excess land used?
- Can the Court issue a writ directing payment of compensation and removal of construction without proof of excess land?
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- illegal construction
- public works
- NH 106
- excess land
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15408 of 2023
======================================================
Sushil Jha Son of Late Bahadur Jha, Resident of Village - Kamalpur, Pipra,
P.S. - Pipra, District - Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
4. The District Magistrate, Supaul.
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul.
6. The Circle Officer, Pipra, Supaul.
7. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Road Transport
and Highways, New Delhi.
8. The Director, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 13-03-2026 Heard Mr.Amarnath Jha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. Nutan Sahay, learned AC to AAG-12.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ
directing the respondents for payment of
compensation to the petitioner for 25
decimals of the land out of khata No. 12 plot
No. 88 mauza Pipra Thana No. 242 Tauji
Patna High Court CWJC No.15408 of 2023(4) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
No. 533/21, P.S. Pipra, District Supaul
which has been used by them in construction
of bridge and in Earth work in connection
with NH 106 while only 1 acre 20 decimals
of the land of the said big plot was but
acquired but 25 decimals more land has
been used;
(ii) for direction upon the respondents to
remove the illegal construction and earth
work done on 25 decimals more land than
the acquired land if the petitioner is not
compensated;
(iii) for any other relief(s)/ order/orders to
which the petitioner may be found entitled in
the facts and circumstances of the case;
(iv) for restraining the respondents from
further construction on the aforesaid land
till disposal of the present writ application..
3. The State counsel with the help of counter affidavit
submits that paragraph-06 which records that plot no.88 has
been acquired and compensation has already been paid to the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15408 of 2023(4) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
4. The claim of the petitioner is that the plot is not
1.20 but excess of it for which payment has not been made.
However, there is nothing on record to show what is the actual
area of plot no.88.
5. In that background, no relief can be extended to the
petitioner. If he is able to produce the document and show that
the plot no. 88 is an excess of 1.20 can very well agitate the
matter before the Collector, Supaul (respondent no.04) in this
regard.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…