Patna High Court
Ramesh Chandra PathakversusThe State of Bihar,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Both the order dated 04‑01‑2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Narkatiyaganj and the letter dated 20‑08‑2024 issued by the Additional Collector, West Champaran are quashed, and the matter is remitted to the Additional Collector to pass a reasoned order after giving due notice.
Summary
The petitioner Ramesh Chandra Pathak claimed ownership of 1.94 acres of land in Laukar, West Champaran, asserting that he is the Raiyat of the land under circular No. 925(6) after purchasing it in 1979. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Narkatiyaganj rejected his claim in Case No. 30/2019‑20 and the Additional Collector later issued a letter confirming the rejection, without giving the petitioner any notice or a copy of the order. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of both the order and the letter, production of the case record, a declaration of his Raiyat status, compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and a restraining order on any construction. The Court observed that the petitioner was denied due process – he was not served notice, not heard, and the orders were not annexed – violating principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court quashed both the 04‑01‑2021 order and the 20‑08‑2024 letter and remitted the matter to the Additional Collector to pass a reasoned order after proper notice. The writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Deputy Collector rejecting the petitioner’s claim as Raiyat was passed without giving the petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice.
- Whether the Additional Collector’s letter confirming the rejection is valid in the absence of annexing the underlying order.
- Whether circular No. 925(6) dated 11‑11‑2014 mandates that the petitioner be deemed Raiyat of the land on the basis of the Jamabandi in his name.
- Whether compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is payable for acquisition of the land for the Indo‑Nepal Border Road Project.
- Whether the respondents should be restrained from constructing on the land until compensation is paid.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Raiyat
- Natural justice
- Compensation
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013
- Circular 925(6)
- Writ of certiorari
- Bihar land reforms
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16221 of 2024
======================================================
Ramesh Chandra Pathak Son of Late Yamuna Pathak Resident of Village-
Lavkar, P.S.- Manpur, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
5. The Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah.
6. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran,
Bettiah.
7. The Circle Officer, Mainatar, West Champaran.
8. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Indo-Nepal
Border Road Project, East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 13-03-2026 Heard Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for
grant of following relief(s):-
“(i) for issuance of writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter
no. 3056 dated 20.08.2024 issued by the
Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah
whereby upon the representation made by the
petitioner, it has been communicated that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2024(3) dt.13-03-2026
2/7
Deputy Collector, Land Reforms,
Narkatiyaganj has rejected the claim of the
petitioner as being Raiyat of the land.
(ii) for necessary direction upon the
respondent authorities to produce the entire
record of Case No. 30/2019-20 from the Circle
Officer, Mainatar and the Deputy Collector,
Land Reforms, Narkatiyaganj and further for
issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing of the order dated 04.01.2021 passed
by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector,
Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran in Case No.
30/2019-20 whereby he has rejected the claim
of the petitioner being the Raiyat of the land in
question in gross violation of the circular
contained in letter no. 925 (6) dated
11.11.2014 issued by the Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
(iii) for holding that the petitioner is
Raiyat of land bearing Thana No. 199, Khata
No. 3, Khesra No. 216, area 1.94 acres
situated in village- Laukar in Circle Mainatar
in the district of West Champaran in terms of
circular No. 925(6) dated 11.11.2014 as the
petitioner purchased the land through
registered sale deed on 15.11.1979 from
Damini Verma, who was the daughter of Ex-
intermediary Mohan Vikram Shah, the land
was given in the share of his unmarried wife
Radha Kumari Devi on the basis of Partition
Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2024(3) dt.13-03-2026
3/7
Suit No. 40/1942 and Radha Kumari Devi
executed a gift deed dated 12.04.1962 in
favour of her daughter Damini Verma,
Jamabandi was also running in the name of
Damini Verma in the Circle Officer, Mainatar
and after the purchase made by the petitioner,
Jamabandi is also running on the name of the
petitioner and he is paying rent to the Govt.
regularly.
(iv) for necessary direction upon the
respondents to follow the circular issued by the
Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt.
of Bihar as contained to memo no. 925(6)
dated 11.11.2014 and particularly paragraph
3(i) (Angah) and (Cha) thereof which provides
that if the land is recorded as Bakasht in the
Khatiyan and the Jamabandi is running in the
name of somebody else, then the land will be
considered to be of the person on whose name
Jamabandi is running. Further, if the land is
recorded as Bakasht in the Khatiyan and it has
been transferred by the intermediary or his
heir to somebody else in such situation, the
land will be deemed to be Raiyati land of such
transferee.
(v) for necessary direction upon the
respondent authorities to pay compensation to
the petitioner for the land bearing Thana No.
199 Khata No. 3, Khesra No. 216, area 1.94
acres situated in village- Laukar in Circle
Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2024(3) dt.13-03-2026
4/7
Mainatar under the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement
Act, 2013 as the said land has been acquired
by the respondent authorities without paying
any compensation to the petitioner for the
Indo-Nepal Border Road Project.
(vi) for restraining the respondents
from making any construction over the land in
question till compensation is paid to the
petitioner.
(vii) for any other direction, which
your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The matter relates to piece of land details of which
is already recorded in Para 1(iii).
4. The petitioner claims it to be his own land, which
has been taken up for the development of the India Nepal
Border Road Project and the petitioner was shocked to receive a
letter no. 3056 dated 20.08.2024 issued by the Office of the
Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah stating that his
claim has already been rejected by Deputy Collector, Land
Reforms, Narkatiyaganj vide Case No. 30/19-20.
5. Aggrieved the, petitioner moved before this Court
for quashing of the present letter no. 3056 dated 20.08.2024 as
also to quash the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land
Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2024(3) dt.13-03-2026
5/7
Reform, Narkatiyaganj (in Misc. Case No. 30/19-20 after
directing the respondents to bring the same on record
6. The case of the petitioner is/are:-
(i) he was never put on notice before the Deputy
Collector, Land Reforms, Narkatiyaganj;
(ii) naturally, he was not heard;
(iii) the said order was never made available by him
so that he could challenge it.
(iv) even the Additional Collector, West Champaran,
Bettiah has not annexed the said order.
7. In paragraph 16 of the petition, the petitioner has
made categorical statement that he was not put on notice.
8. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of
respondent nos. 3 to 7 duly signed by the Circle Officer,
Mainatand, West Champaran and in reply to para 16, the
statement is that the Circle Officer, Mainatand has sent the
recommendation before the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector,
Narkatiyaganj who passed the order. The reply to the paragraph
16 of the writ petition has been incorporated in the para 19 of
the counter affidavit which read as under:-
“ (19) that in respect of
paragraph no. 16 and 17 of the present writ
petition, it is most humbly submitted that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2024(3) dt.13-03-2026
6/7
Circle Officer, Mainatand, annexing the
documents, submitted by the writ petitioner,
has sent its recommendation before the Land
Reforms Deputy Collector, Narkatiaganj,
West Champaran to take necessary action in
respect of the Raiyantikaran of the land and
thereafter the Land Reforms Deputy
Collector, Narkatiaganj, West Champaran
has initiated Case No. 30 of 2019-20
(Anchal- Mainatand) and passed its order on
04.09.2021 by which he has not accepted the
recommendation of the Circle Officer,
Mainatand and has found the claim of the
writ petition was baseless and therefore the
plea of the petitioner for Raiyantikaran of his
land was not accepted.”
9. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the
petitioner was neither put on notice nor was heard before the
order in question was passed. Further, he has not been provided
any copy of the said order. Worse, even the Additional Collector
while negating the claim of the petitioner chose not to annex the
said order.
10. In that background, this Court has no option but to
quash both the orders dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Land Reforms, Narkatiyaganj and the order dated
20.08.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, West
Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2024(3) dt.13-03-2026
7/7
Champaran, Bettiah.
11. The matter is remitted back to Additional
Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah who shall be noticing all
the parties and pass a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with law at the earliest.
12. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ranjeet/-
U
Checking your session…