Patna High Court
Tripurari Sharma and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is only entitled to challenge the revenue order before a competent court, and therefore the writ petition seeking declaration of lapse of acquisition and Raiyati status was not entertained.
Summary
The petitioners, sons of the late Baikunth Nath Singh, filed a writ petition seeking declaration that the acquisition of their land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and that the land be declared Raiyati. They also requested that the authorities be directed to re‑initiate acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act and pay compensation accordingly. The State of Bihar, through its counsel, produced an order dated 13 September 2025 in Raiyatikaran Case No. 07 of 2025‑26, which rejected the petitioners' claim but permitted them to assail the order before a competent court. The petitioner’s counsel argued for a liberty to challenge that order. Justice Rajiv Roy granted the liberty to approach a competent court and disposed of the writ petition without granting the substantive reliefs sought. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the matter was left for adjudication in the appropriate forum.
Issues considered
- Whether the acquisition of land prior to 1 January 2014 lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether the land can be declared Raiyati after the acquisition proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the revenue order in a competent court.
- Whether the writ petition seeking declaration of lapse and re‑initiation of acquisition under the 2013 Act should be entertained.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013
- Section 24
- Raiyati
- civil writ jurisdiction
- compensation
- rehabilitation and resettlement
- petition disposal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16168 of 2017
======================================================
1. Tripurari Sharma and Ors
2. Tribhuwan Sharma,
3. Murari Sharma, All Sons of Late Baikunth Nath Singh, resident of Village
Raghopur, Police Station Bihta, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
6 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned State
Counsel.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
A. For holding that in view of
commencement of Right to fair compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013
(herein after referred to as "Act 2013") which
came into effect on 1.1.2014, the acquisition of
Land of the petitioner deemed to have lapsed
in view of section 24(2) of the Act 2013.
B. For further relief that after
making all necessary inquiry in Jamabandi
cancellation case No. 06/12-13 Respondents
authority reached on conclusion in view of
Government of Bihar notification dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.16168 of 2017(6) dt.19-01-2026
2/2
11.11.2014 that petitioners land is be declared
as Raiyati.
C. For further relief that after
making such declaration direction be issued
upon the respondents authorities that if they so
chooses may re-initiate acquisition
proceedings afresh in respect of the same land
but that under the regime of Act 2013 and to
pay the compensation as per the mandate of
the New Act i.e. Act 2013.
D. For any other relief's or relief's
for which the petitioners are found entitled in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Mr. Prasad has provided an order dated 13.09.2025
in Raiyatikaran Case No. 07 of 2025-26 (State of Bihar vs.
Tripurari Singh & Ors.) according to which, the claim of the
present petitioner has been rejected allowing him to assail the
order, if he so wants.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
may be permitted to assail the said order before a Competent
Court.
5. Granting said liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…