Patna High Court
Om Prakash @ Om Prakash YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed and the matter is referred to the Collector, Patna, for determination of the actual land acquired, the award, and any excess compensation.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Prakash Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a revised award and return of excess compensation for land acquired for the Patna‑Gaya four‑lane project, alleging that only 3 Katha 7 Dhur was actually taken while he had been paid for 5½ Katha. Conflicting reports were presented: an Amin’s report dated 15‑08‑2024 showing partial acquisition and a joint report of the Amin and NHAI indicating compensation for 0.1768 acres. The petitioner requested the court to command the respondents to act on the earlier order, maintain status‑quo on the unacquired portion, and grant any other relief. The court held that the dispute should be resolved by the Collector, Patna, who is empowered to examine the reports, determine the actual land acquired, the award, and any excess compensation, and to take action against any errant official. Accordingly, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Collector within eight weeks and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the matter to the administrative authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain the writ petition under Article 226 despite conflicting acquisition reports.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a revised award and recovery of excess compensation for land allegedly over‑compensated.
- Whether the court should direct the Collector to determine the actual extent of land acquired and the correctness of the award.
- Whether a status‑quo order is appropriate on the unacquired portion of the land pending resolution.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- writ petition
- Article 226
- award revision
- status quo
- collector
- NHAI
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1699 of 2025
======================================================
Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Yadav son of Bhagwan Prasad @ Bhagwan
Yadav resident of Pakri, Punpun, P.S. Punpun, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Collector, Patna
3. The District land Acquisition Officer, Patna
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Patna Sadar, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif, District Patna.
6. The National Highway Authority of India, through its project Director, Bihar
Region, Patna.
7. Dharmendra Kumar Singh S/O- Jagat Singh Resident of Village -Chihut old
PS- Phulwari, New PS- Parsa Bazar, District -Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. J. S. Arora, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12)
For the NHAI : Mrs. Ankita, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. J. S. Arora, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner, Mrs. Ankita, learned counsel for the NHAI and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for
grant of following reliefs:-
“ I. For commanding the respondent
to act in terms of the order issued by letter
dated 07.10.2024, as contained in Annexure-
P/12 and to get the land acquired out of the
petitioner’s land, measured and demarcated at
Patna High Court CWJC No.1699 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
2/5
site as per their order dated 07.10.2024 passed
in measurement record no. 277/2024-25 and
thereby revise/correct the award prepared in
the name of the petitioner and accordingly to
prepare a fresh revised award regarding the
acquired land of the petitioner as detailed in
Para 5 of the writ application and to receive
back excess money paid to the petitioner.
II. During the pendency of the writ
application with regard to the unacquired land
out of 5.5 Kathas of Plot No. 359 in question,
the Respondents be directed to maintain Status
quo till the direction is made in between the
said unacquired land, and the acquired land is
made by the Respondent authorities.
III. Also for any other relief to which
the petitioner so found entitled in the eye of law
or in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The petitioner claims to be land owner having
following details, Mauza- 78, Thana No. 14, Khata No. 26,
Khesra- 359, Area-21.875 under Phulwarisharif circle in the
district of Patna.
4. The land was taken/acquired for Patna- Gaya four
lane, award prepared and payments made. There is no dispute
on the facts that the petitioner received payment for 5 ½ plot by
the total area of the land which is/are 7 Kathas.
5. The dispute arose when an Amin, Amrendra Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.1699 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
3/5
Pandey, on 15.08.2024 gave a report that while 3 Kathas 7 dhur
of the land has been taken over for the construction of four lane,
the rest 3 Katha 13 dhur remains. This followed the petitioner
invoking the writ jurisdiction claiming that since the acquisition
is only 3 Kathas 7 dhur, though he has received payment of 5 ½
Kathas., minus 3 Kathas 7 dhurs, the rest of amount be taken
back by the respondents and he be given possession of 3 Kathas
13 dhur.
6. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of
respondent nos. 2 to 5 duly signed by the Circle Officer,
Phulwarisharf, Patna and learned State counsel has straightway
taken this Court to another report dated 04.04.2025 jointly
submitted by the Amin of the Phulwarisharif Circle Office and
also the Amin of NHAI, Patna. According to said joint report,
the petitioner, Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Yadav has received
compensation amount for 0.17168 acres of land and/or 4.6470
decimal of land is in his possession.
7. Mrs. Ankita, learned counsel representing ‘the
NHAI’, submits that the dispute has arisen due to two different
reports, it cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of
Constitution of India.
8. Having heard the parties this Court is inline with
Patna High Court CWJC No.1699 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
4/5
the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for ‘the NHAI’.
The accepted fact is that acquisition took place in the year 2020
for Patna- Gaya four lane in which the aforesaid land of the
petitioner was also included.
9. An award was prepared (copies not available in the
writ petition), the petitioner received compensation to the tune
of 5 ½ Kathas.
10. In that background, how and under what
circumstance, the Amin, namely, Amrendra Kumar Pandey gave
a report on 15.08.2024 (Independence Day) (Annexure- P/14 to
the writ petition) recording that only 3 Kathas 7 dhur has been
acquired while 3 Kathas 13 dhur belongs to the petitioner.
11. Subsequent joint report of the Amin and ‘the
NHAI’ shows that compensation of 0.1768 acres of land has
been made. In that background, the matter has to be adjudicated
at the end of the respondent no. 2, the Collector, Patna.
12. The petitioner is well advised to approach the said
respondent, Collector, Patna in next eight weeks who shall be
issuing notice to all the concerned parties including the
respondent no. 3, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna
and the Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna, beside the officials
of ‘the NHAI’ and after hearing the parties, shall finally decide:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1699 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
5/5
(i) the actual land of the petitioner;
(ii) the award that has been prepared
with respect to the said land;
(iii) the compensation amount that the
petitioner has been paid/received;
(iv) whether any land of the petitioner is
still left over which has to be handed over to him or
not?
(v) any other point which the learned
Collector, Patna may deem fit and proper;
13. Needless to add if the Collector, Patna comes to a
conclusion that the Amin, namely, Amrendra Kumar Pandey
provided a wrong report dated 15.08.2024 and actually played
mischief, necessary action be taken against him.
14. Expecting the Collector, Patna to take the matter
to its logical conclusion at an earliest preferably within a period
of six months, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ranjeet/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.