Patna High Court
Dr. Himanshu RoyversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISS FOR NON-PROSECUTION
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
Dr. Himanshu Roy filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus and certiorari to restrain the State of Bihar and its agencies from acquiring his land under the urgency clause of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to quash notifications issued in December 2007 that allegedly bypassed the procedure under Section 5A. The petitioner failed to appear before the court despite the State and the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) being represented. The court noted that no appearance was made on the petitioner's side on the hearing date of 2 February 2026. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of non‑prosecution, without addressing the substantive merits of the acquisition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus or certiorari to restrain land acquisition under the urgency clause of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Whether the notifications dated 13.12.2007 and 24.12.2007, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, are liable to be quashed for bypassing Section 5A
- Whether the petition can proceed in the absence of the petitioner's appearance
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 17, 4, 5A, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- urgency clause
- mandamus
- certiorari
- non‑prosecution
- high court writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16207 of 2015
======================================================
Dr. Himanshu Roy Son of Late Brajdeo Prasad Roy, resident of V-19,
Vidyapuri, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Town and District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. The District Collector, Patna.
3. The Land Asquisition Officer, Patna. null null
4. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
BIADA, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Bihta, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, GA-8
For the BIADA : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 02-02-2026 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though the
State as also learned counsel for the Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority (BIADA) are present.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus or such other writ/order/direction
restraining the respondents from acquiring the land
owned by the petitioner by invoking urgency clause
under Section 17 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894
(The Act) and for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16207 of 2015(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/2
Certiorari or such other writ/order/direction for of
quashing of Notification dated 13.12.2007 issued
under Section 4 of the Act and the Notification
dated 24.12.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act
whereby the procedure prescribed under Section
5A of the Act has been dispensed with on the
alleged ground of urgency whereas possession has
not been taken till date and after a lapse of more
than 7 years now the possession is sought to be
taken.”
3. A perusal of the order dated 24.08.2023 shows that
on the said date also, there was no appearance.
4. In that background, the writ petition stands
dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…