Patna High Court
Punam KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to the compensation as per the arbitration award, and the Deputy General Manager (Technical), NH‑82, must pay the amount within eight weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Punam Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay enhanced compensation for her land acquired for NH‑82, as ordered by the Arbitrator‑cum‑Divisional Commissioner in Arbitration Case No. 95/2022. The respondents argued that the compensation calculation had been forwarded to the Deputy General Manager (Technical), NH‑82, for approval and that the matter was not before the court. The High Court examined the arbitration award, noted that the calculation sheet had been sent but payment remained unpaid, and found no challenge to the award by the appropriate authority. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the compensation as per the award. The Court directed the Deputy General Manager, NH‑82, to release the payment within eight weeks and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents are bound to pay the enhanced compensation awarded by the Arbitrator‑cum‑Divisional Commissioner.
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing payment of compensation in a land acquisition matter.
- Whether the Deputy General Manager (Technical), NH‑82, is the appropriate authority to execute the payment.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- arbitration award
- mandamus
- writ petition
- NHAI
- Bihar
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15574 of 2023
======================================================
Punam Kumari Wife of Sri Ramakant Kumar, Resident of Village Beldari P.O.
Musepur, P.S. Khijar Sarai, District- Gaya (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reform Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Arbitrator Cum Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Aurangabad.
4. The Competent Authority Cum District Land Acquisition Officer, Gaya.
5. The Chief Managing Director, National Highway Authority of India, Head
Office Dwarka, New Delhi.
6. The Project Director, Pakai- Rajgir (Gaya), National Highway 82.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy (Gp18)
For NHAI : Mr. Kumar Goutam, Adv.
Ms. Priyanshu Kumari, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2026 In this case, the counter affidavit on behalf of the
respondent nos 3 and 4 was filed on 14.05.2025 but the copy has
been served in the Court eleven months later, today. As such, the
concerned office clerk (Dhanu Prasad) shall be paying Rs. 500/-
from his/her pocket to Mr. Santosh Kumar and the receipt has
to be filed by Monday failing which he/she will be paying Rs.
1,000/- to him.
2. The present application has been preferred:
in the nature of Mandamus
/Commanding and directing upon the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15574 of 2023(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/5
concerned Respondents to pay the
compensation in light of order dated 17.3.
2023 passed in Arbitration Case No.
95/2002 by the Arbitrator Cum Commission,
Magadh Division Gaya whereby and where
under the compensation has been enhanced
by treating the land as residential and cost of
boundary Wall and structure as per
prevalent MVR and direction has been given
to pay the same and in spite of calculation of
enhanced amount and difference amount Rs.
47,26,170 vide letter no. 680/Bhu dated
20.5. 2023 no difference of compensation
has been paid.
3. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 and the stand of the State respondent
is/are incorporated in paragraph nos. 8 and 10 and read as under:
8) That the matters mentioned in
the Para No. 8 of this Writ Petition is itself
EVIDENT that the answering respondents
have complied the Judgement dated
17/03/2023 passed by the Learned Court of
Arbitrator cum Commissioner, Magadh
Division, Gaya in Arbitration Case No.
95/2022 for the land, acquired in N. H. 82
project by redetermining the amount of
compensation for her land under acquisition
and forwarded/submitted the Calculation
Sheet (3G estimate), prepared in compliance
Patna High Court CWJC No.15574 of 2023(2) dt.18-04-2026
3/5
of same Judgement dated 17/03/2023 along
with the Photocopy of the said Order in
Arbitration Case No. 95/202022, for the
approval of payment, through Letter No. 680
dated 20/05/2023 to the Deputy General
Manager (Technical) N. Η. -82, BSRDCL,
Gaya.
10) That for the allegations made
in Para No. 15 of this writ petition is entirely
baseless against these answering
respondents. It is humbly submitted hereby
that from the perusal of Record and even on
admission of the petitioner (Punam Kumari)
in this writ, the Respondent No. 4 has
redetermined the amount of compensation in
compliance of said Judgement passed by the
Learned Court of Arbitrator cum
Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in
Arbitration Case No. 95 /2022 and
forwarded/submitted the same 3G estimate
along with calculation sheet to the Deputy
General Manager (Technical) N.H. 82,
BSRDCL, Gaya for the approval of payment
for her land under acquisition, through
Letter No. 680 dated 20/05/2023.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that the ball is in the
Court of the Deputy General Manager (Technical), NH-82,
Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, Gaya, it is
not in the list of respondent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15574 of 2023(2) dt.18-04-2026
4/5
5. In the opinion of the Court, an order has been
passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner,
Magadh Division Gaya in the Arbitration Case No. 95 of 2022
(Punam Kumari vs Competent Authority-cum-District Land
Acquisition Officer, Gaya & ors.) on 17.03.2023 whereafter,
calculation-sheet has been sent to the aforesaid Deputy General
Manager vide letter no. 680 dated 20.05.2023.
6. The same has not been attached with the counter
affidavit, in that background and if the said order of the
Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya has not been
challenged by the appropriate authority and the payment has
still not been made, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation
amount as per the direction given by the Divisional
Commissioner, Magadh Division Gaya .
7. In that background, the Deputy General Manager
(Technical), NH-82, Bihar State Road Development Corporation
Limited, Gaya is directed to look into the matter, do the needful
and as recorded, if the matter is still not under litigation, to clear
the amount preferably within a period of eight weeks from the
date the petitioner prefers representation.
8. The aforesaid order has been passed in the
background of the submissions put forward by the learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.15574 of 2023(2) dt.18-04-2026
5/5
counsel for the petitioner that payment has still not been made
and the matter is not under litigation.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
10. Let the matter come up under the heading ‘To Be
Mentioned’ on 23.04.2026 to peruse the receipt showing fine
amount which is to be paid to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…