Patna High Court
Kakolat Road Muawza Samiti, through its Secretary, Krishna Kumar Singh @ Lalan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Since the award was fixed without the mandatory report and without proper determination of the land’s nature and category as required by Sections 26 and 37(2) of the 2013 Act, the petitioners were entitled to a recalculation of compensation, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, a landowners' association and several individuals, challenged an award notice dated 17‑18 July 2025 issued by the District Magistrate‑Collector for land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They alleged that the award was fixed without the mandatory report on the nature and category of land required by Section 37(2) and without complying with the valuation procedure under Section 26, despite a representation filed on 31 May 2025. The petition sought certiorari to quash the award and mandamus directing the authorities to reassess compensation in line with the current market value rate (MVR) and the statutory provisions. The court examined the evidence of the land’s market value and noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal. It held that the award had been improperly calculated and that the authorities must recalculate compensation based on the prevailing MVR, but ultimately dismissed the writ petition. The petition was therefore disposed of without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the award notice dated 17‑18 July 2025 violates Section 37(2) of the 2013 Act by being issued without the mandatory report on the nature and category of land.
- Whether the District Magistrate‑Collector failed to comply with Section 26 of the 2013 Act in determining the nature and category of the land before fixing the award.
- Whether mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to reassess and prepare a new award in compliance with Sections 26 and 28 of the Act.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to higher compensation based on the current market value rate (MVR) as reflected in the State’s valuation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- award recalculation
- mandamus
- certiorari
- valuation
- market value rate
- procedural compliance
- Section 26
- Section 37(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1701 of 2026
======================================================
1. Kakolat Road Muawza Samiti, through its Secretary, Krishna Kumar Singh
@ Lalan Singh Son of Late Bengali Singh, Resident of Village - Dihi, Post
Office - Rajhat, Police Station - Akbarpur, District - Nawada.
2. Krishna Kumar Singh @ Lalan Singh, Son of Late Bengali Singh, Resident
of Village -Dihi, Post Office Rajhat, Police Station Akbarpur, District -
Nawada.
3. Qazi Syed Monum, Son of Late Ahmad Raza, Resident of Village and Post
Office Rajhat, Police Station - Akbarpur, District - Nawada.
4. Arvind Kumar Ghosh, Son of Balram Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village -
Balia Buzurg, Post Office - Rajhat, Police Station - Akbarpur, District
-Nawada.
5. Rohan Prasad, Son of Late Mauji Saw, Resident of Village Akbarpur, Azad
Mohalla, Post Office - Rajhat, Police Station - Akbarpur, District - Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and
Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Land Acquisition, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate - cum - Collector, Nawada.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nawada.
5. The Registrar, Registry Office, Nawada.
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawada.
7. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Rajauli, Nawada.
8. The Circle Officer, Akbarpur, District - Nawada.
9. The Circle Officer, Govindpur, District - Nawada.
10. The Circle Officer, Meskaur, District - Nawada.
11. The Circle Officer, Narhat, District - Nawada.
12. The Circle Officer, Hisua, District - Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rashid Izhar, Advocate.
Mr. Syed Md. Ibrahim Quli, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to GP-13.
Mr. Akshay Lal Prasad, AC to GP-13.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.1701 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/4
2 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“(I) Issuance of Writ or Writs in the nature of
certiorari quashing the Award Notice dated 17-18.07.2025,
which is prepared without submission or availability of the
mandatory Report for determination of nature and category
of land under section 37(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and in conflict
with the direction issued in this context by the Government
of Bihar which is prepared in haste even when the District
Land Valuation Committee was constituted on 19.05.2025
(II) Issuance of Writ or Writs in the nature of
mandamus commanding the Respondents to act upon the
Order of Government of Bihar dated 22.04.2025 and only
after assessment of the nature and category of the land in
terms of action, vide Order dated 19.05.2025, as directed by
the Respondent District Magistrate -cum-Collector to take
further course to prepare the respective Awards in favour of
the Title Holders of the land under acquisition and the
wrongful and contrary action of the Respondent is causing
wide spread grievance among the citizens resulting into
huge future pendency of litigation in Courts and before
administration.
(III) For issuance of Writ or Writs in the nature
of mandamus commanding the Respondent Collector cum-
District Magistrate to reassess and prepare a new Award in
favour of the Petitioners towards the proposed acquisition
of land for SH 103 Manjve Govindpur Path Project and
direct for strict compliance of section 26 and 28 of the Act
by the District Land Acquisition Authorities.
(IV) Grant any other relief or reliefs to which
the Petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of this case.”
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the
District Magistrate cum Collector who allegedly without
following the procedure as prescribed under Section 26 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1701 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/4
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”) with regard to
determination of nature and category of land and in spite of the
representation filed by the similarly situated persons and the
petitioners on 31.05.2025, has erroneously calculated the Award
without giving opportunity to the petitioners and has also issued
Award notice under Section 37(2) of the Act, 2013 along with a
detailed Award in favour of the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 on
17.07.2025. Petitioners are aggrieved by the illegal fixation of
the Award on the basis of the nature of the land as mentioned in
Khatiyan and the sale deed of the petitioners and similarly
situated persons. Learned counsel submitted that in course of
time, the nature of land has changed. The petitioner has
purchased the said land for amount of Rs. 20 lacs by depositing
required stamp duty to the government. The petitioners have
claimed that they are entitled for higher compensation at the
existing MVR in the area. Petitioners have been able to bring on
record the value of the land by way of registered sale deed and
on the basis of the MVR determined by the State Government,
they have made payment of required stamp duty.
4. In view of the recorded evidence and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1701 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
4/4
established MVR of the area, in which vicinity, petitioners’ land
has been acquired, I find it proper that the concerned authority
must give due regard to the same and recalculate the amount of
Award at the current rate of MVR so that the petitioners should
not be made to suffer financially in any manner. The claim of
the petitioners is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal
& Ors., reported in AIR 2020 SC 1496 and the amendment
brought in the Act, 2013 in the year 2018. Admittedly, in the
present case, the petitioners have not received the amount of
compensation till date.
5. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U
Checking your session…