Patna High Court

Rakesh Narayan SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 19 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court held that the acquisition did not lapse and the State must pay compensation calculated at the current MVR.

Summary

The petitioner, Rakesh Narayan Singh, claimed that his ancestral land of 8.10 bighas was acquired in 1976‑77 for the Gogri‑Narayanpur Embankment under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but he never received compensation and the relevant records are missing. The State of Bihar argued that compensation had been paid to a co‑coparcener and that the records were unavailable. The Court examined the legal position under the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, particularly Section 24, and held that possession had been taken and therefore the acquisition had not lapsed despite non‑payment of compensation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that the State must pay compensation calculated on the current Minimum Value Register. Consequently, the Court directed the authorities to recompute and disburse the compensation and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 of the 2013 Act due to non‑payment of compensation.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation calculated on the basis of the Minimum Value Register despite the absence of records.
Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for land acquired under the 1894 Act after possession has been taken.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 16, 31, 34, 4, 9
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(2)

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
Section 24
Right to Fair Compensation Act
Article 300-A
Minimum Value Register
Gogri Dam
writ petition

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15767 of 2022
======================================================
Rakesh Narayan Singh Son of Late Kamal Deo Narayan Singh Resident of
Village and P.O. and P.S.- Parbatta, District- Khagaria at present R/o 410,
Pandey Mall Complex, Frazer Road, Patna- 800001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue, Government of Bihar.
4. The Director, Land Acquisition Department Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Collector, Khagaria.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer, Khagaria.
7. The Circle Officer, Parbatta, Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Narayansingh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar, (SC11)
Mr.Piyush Kumar Pandey, AC to SC 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026
Heard Mr. Rakesh Narayansingh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kumar,

learned SC11 for the State.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present

writ petition has sought inter alia the following relief(s), which

is reproduced hereinafter:-

“1. That this petition is being filed for issuance
of an appropriate writ/writs, directing against the respondents
for making payment of compensation amount of 8.10 bighas land
of the petitioner which was taken by the respondents way back in
1976-77 for construction of Gogri-Narayanpur Embankment in
different L.A. Case Nos. 76-77.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15767 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
2/9

petitioner submitted that during the year 1974–75, the

Government decided to construct an embankment along the

river Ganga, namely the Gogri–Narayanpur Embankment, for

which large tracts of land were acquired by the State. In the

course of construction of the said embankment, the petitioner’s

ancestral lands appertaining to Mauza Harinmar (Thana No.

376), Khata Nos. 26 and 39, Khesra Nos. 101 and 102, as well

as, Mauza Timapur and Karari (Thana No. 379), Khata Nos. 300

and 164, Khesra Nos. 238 and 240, measuring a total area of 8

Bigha 10 Kattha, were also acquired after due initiation of land

acquisition proceedings. Notifications under Sections 4 and 9 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were issued by the then

A.D.M., Munger. He further submitted that the said lands were

ancestral properties which had fallen to the share of the

petitioner’s father pursuant to Title Suit No. (25/1949)/

(41/1951), decided by the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Munger.

Learned counsel submitted that the order sheet relating to

payment and the records pertaining to compensation are missing

and, as reported by the record keeper, no information is

available regarding payment of compensation to the petitioner

or his ancestors. He further submitted that the acquisition

proceedings for construction of the Gogri Dam were initiated in
Patna High Court CWJC No.15767 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
3/9

the year 1977–78 in accordance with the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 and the petitioner having not received the

requisite amount of compensation till date, finally filed the

present writ petition. Learned counsel has further submitted that

the due compensation payable to the petitioner is required to be

calculated on the basis of the Minimum Value Register (MVR)

as determined by the State Government for the vicinity in which

the acquired land is situated. Learned counsel has also placed

reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWJC No.

14927 of 2021.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the State submitted that, in cases where compensation has

been paid to the respective landholders whose lands were

acquired for the construction of the Gogri Dam, the records

relating to such landholders are ordinarily maintained in the

office concerned. However, in the present case, it has been

informed to this Court by the Land Acquisition Officer, duly

affirmed in the affidavit dated 21.02.2023, that the records

pertaining to Land Acquisition Case no.18 of 1967-68 and Land

Acquisition Case No.76-77 are not available in the office. It has

further been submitted that one of the petitioner’s coparcener, in

respect of his share of the acquired land, has already received
Patna High Court CWJC No.15767 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
4/9

compensation. Information to this effect is contained in

paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the Executive

Engineer.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

objected to the aforesaid submission and contended that, on the

basis of incomplete and incorrect information, the respondents

are seeking to deny the petitioner his lawful compensation in

respect of the acquired land. He submitted that the Land

Acquisition Officer has furnished erroneous information with

regard to payment of compensation. Learned counsel further

submitted that the statement contained in paragraph 7 of the

counter affidavit cannot be relied upon, as the Land Acquisition

Officer, in his subsequent affidavit has categorically admitted

that no records relating to the land acquisition cases concerning

to the petitioner are available in the office.

6. Heard the parties.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made

on behalf of the parties, as well as, the information contained in

the present writ petition, counter affidavit and supplementary

counter affidavit and other documents on records, it is an

admitted position that, in Land Acquisition Case no.18 of 1967-

68 and Land Acquisition Case No.76-77, the lands of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15767 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
5/9

petitioner were acquired for the construction of the Gogri Dam.

It is further not disputed that, after acquisition and taking

possession of the petitioner’s land, the dam was constructed and

has been completed. It is also admitted that, although the

acquisition proceedings were undertaken and possession was

taken, the records relating to the said land acquisition cases are

presently not available in the office of the Land Acquisition

Officer. The petitioner contend that the compensation award is

pending since more than 50 years, seeking payment in terms of

the applicable Government Resolution. The legal position

governing such issues is no longer res integra and stands

authoritatively settled by the Apex Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, reported in

AIR 2020 SC 1496 which is reproduced hereinafter:

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case
the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered
by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall
continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013
Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or
as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five years
or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor compensation
has been paid. In other words, in case possession has
been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is
Patna High Court CWJC No.15767 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
6/9

no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid,
possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit
is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has
not been deposited with respect to majority of
landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section
4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case
the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34
of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of
land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more,
compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the
“landowners” as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or
non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to
pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section
31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to
be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section
24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894
Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession
has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for
land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as
on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders
passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of
five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to
new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the
2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-
barred claims and does not reopen concluded
proceedings nor allow landowners to question the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15767 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
7/9

legality of mode of taking possession to reopen
proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the
treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

8. It is also to be taken note of that Article 300-A

of the Constitution of India, which tends to safeguard the

invaluable right to property.

“300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property
save by authority of law
No person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law.”
9. The State cannot disposes a citizen of his

property except in accordance with law and procedure

prescribed. The obligation to pay compensation is not

expressively included in Article 300-A of the Constitution of

India can be inferred in that Article. The law in this regard is

well settled by the Apex Court in case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020(2) SCC

569, I find it proper to quote Para-12.1 and 12.2 of the said

judgment, which are inter alia reproduced hereinafter;

“12.1. The appellant was forcibly expropriated of her
property in 1967, when the right to property was a
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of
the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to
private property [State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose,
(1953) 2 SCC 688 , which could not be deprived without
due process of law and upon just and fair compensation.
12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental
right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act,
1978, however, it continued to be a human right
[Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 in a
welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article
300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no
person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of
Patna High Court CWJC No.15767 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
8/9

his property except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. The obligation to pay compensation,
though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be
inferred in that Article. [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State
of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1”

10. The above proposition of law has again been

reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar Mishra

(D) and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others, in Civil Appeal

No. 6351 of 2024, reported in (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases

605, is relevant. The paragraph is reproduced as under:–

“ 16. The right to property ceased to be a
fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human
right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under
Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides
that no person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his
property except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. The obligation to pay compensation,
though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be
inferred in that Article. [See: K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1.”

11. In such circumstances, when the question of right

to property as per the provision of Article 300 A of the

Constitution of India comes to the knowledge of this Court and

also in view of the recorded evidence and the established MVR

of the area, in which vicinity, petitioner’s land has been

acquired, this Court has no alternative than to direct the

concerned authority to give due regard to the same and

recalculate the amount of compensation at the current rate of
Patna High Court CWJC No.15767 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
9/9

MVR so that the petitioner should not be made to suffer

financially in any manner. The claim of the petitioner is

supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority (Supra) and the amendment

brought in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 in the year 2018. Admittedly, in the present case, the

petitioner has not received the amount of compensation till date.

12. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.02.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…