Patna High Court
Bashishth Narayan Mahto @ Nunu Prasad MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The order dated 01.07.2021 preparing the compensation award in favour of the respondents is quashed as it was passed without due consideration of the petitioner's title and rights, and the matter is remitted to the Collector for fresh determination.
Summary
The petitioner, Bashishth Narayan Mahto, claimed ownership of 0.45 acre of land in Supaul district, inherited through family partition in 1976 and recorded in his name. The State, under the Land Bank Scheme, acquired the land and a compensation award of Rs. 11,07,000 was prepared in favor of other family members without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order dated 01.07.2021 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, alleging violation of his right to property under Article 300A and non‑consideration of his title documents. The court examined the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly Sections 63 and 64, which govern objections to awards. Finding that the authority had failed to consider the petitioner’s claim and that the award was illegal and arbitrary, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the District Collector for fresh consideration, disposing of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority dated 01.07.2021 is violative of the petitioner's right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
- Whether the authority erred by preparing the compensation award in favour of other respondents without hearing the petitioner and without considering his title documents.
- Whether Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides a remedy that the court can enforce by quashing the award.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation award
- right to property
- Article 300A
- Section 64
- quashing order
- certiorari
- mandamus
- family partition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17660 of 2021
======================================================
Bashishth Narayan Mahto @ Nunu Prasad Mahto Son of Babulal Mahto
Resident of Village- Chhoti Balha, Ward No. 03, P.S.- Mansi, District-
Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate Saharsa.
3. The Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Saharsa.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer Supaul.
5. Kaleshwar Kamat Son of Late Janak Kamat Resident of Village- Chainsingh
Patti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul.
6. Bechan Kamat Son of Late Dhaneshwar Kamat Resident of Village-
Chainsingh Patti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul.
7. Shyamal Kishore Kamat Son of Late Dhaneshwar Kamat Resident of
Village- Chainsingh Patti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul.
8. Dukha Kamat Son of Late Dhaneshwar Kamat Resident of Village-
Chainsingh Patti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul.
9. Umakant Kamat Son of Late Dhaneshwar Kamat Resident of Village-
Chainsingh Patti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, (GP 18)
Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, AC to GP 18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 02-02-2026 Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, learned GP
18 along with Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, learned AC to GP 18 for
the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia the following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17660 of 2021(7) dt.02-02-2026
2/8
“1. That the petitioner above-
named prays for granting the following reliefs to
the petitioner:-
i) To issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari, setting aside the order dated
01.07.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority, Saharsa in Authority Land Acquisition
Case No.02/2016, by which he has illegally and
without considering the material aspects
regarding title over the land in question
appertaining to Khata No.177, Kheshra No.1023
measuring area 0.45 acre (7 katha 15 dhurs) of
village-Chainsigh Patti, P.S.-Supaul, District-
Supaul which has been acquired under land bank
scheme by the State Government. ordered to pay
the compensation of the land in favour of the
Respondents 2nd set, which is illegal and bad in
the eye of law.
ii) To issue a writ of further
certiorari, setting aside the subsequent decree
dated 14.07.2021 prepared in pursuance mance
of aforesaid order dated 01.07.2021 for making
payment of compensation of the land in question
in favour of Respondents 2nd set.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus,
commanding and directing the Respondent
authority concerned to make payment of
compensation of land in question to the
petitioner who is legally entitled for the same in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) And/or any other relief or reliefs
for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of this case.”
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is
the lawful owner and is in cultivating position of the land
appertaining to Khata No. 177, Kheshra No. 1023, measuring an
area of 0.45 acre (7 katha 15 dhurs), situated at village
Chainsigh Patti, P.S. Supaul, District Supaul, which he has
inherited from his ancestors (Babu Lal Mahto, father of the
petitioner), in the year 1976 on the basis of family partition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17660 of 2021(7) dt.02-02-2026
3/8
Since then he has been in peaceful physical possession and
Jamabandi No. 1019 stands in his name. Subsequently, the
above mentioned land was acquired by the State Government
under Land Acquisition Case No. 185/2014-15, and
compensation amounting to Rs. 11,07,000/- was determined
vide order dated 20.09.2015 passed by the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Supaul, but without hearing or considering
the petitioner’s claim, the award was prepared in favour of
Respondents 2nd set, namely Dhaneshwar Kamat and
Kaleshwar Kamat, compelling the petitioner to raise objection
before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority, Supaul in Case No. 02/2016 under Section 64(1) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act, 2013’). He had also filed
detailed written arguments on 11.02.2021 and supplementary
written arguments on 07.04.2021 in support of his claim for
compensation.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
Respondent No. 3, without proper consideration of the
petitioner’s documents, revenue records, Jamabandi and long-
standing possession since 1976, passed the impugned order
Patna High Court CWJC No.17660 of 2021(7) dt.02-02-2026
4/8
dated 01.07.2021 directing preparation of the award in favour of
Respondents 2nd set, pursuant to which an award dated
14.07.2021 was prepared, though compensation has not yet been
disbursed. The petitioner seeks holding of the impugned order
dated 01.07.2021 bad in law and the consequential award dated
14.07.2021 to be illegal, arbitrary, malafide and vitiated by
complete non-consideration of material facts, and for protection
of his constitutional right guaranteed under the Article 300 A of
the Constitution of India. The petitioner has filed the present
writ petition for directing the concerned authority for redressal
of his genuine grievance.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action
of the State Government authority, having acquired the land, in
the garb of the scheme namely Land Bank Scheme appertaining
to Khata No.177, Kheshra No.1023 measuring area 0.45 acre (7
katha 15 dhurs) in village- Chainsigh Patti, P.S.-Supaul, District-
Supaul without making payment of the due compensation to the
petitioner and also for rectification of the award prepared in the
name of Respondents 2nd Set, dated 14.07.2021 by preparing
separate award in the name of the petitioner whose share of
Khatiyani land has been acquired for the preparation of the land
Patna High Court CWJC No.17660 of 2021(7) dt.02-02-2026
5/8
bank.
6. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of state submitted that as per the records of the present case the
second defendant in L.A. case no. 02/2016 , Vashishtha Narayan
Mahato, clearly discloses a valid and continuous chain of title
and possession over the land in question. Khata No. 177
originally stood in the names of Mehboob Ali and Sheikh
Zainuddin as Khatian Raiyats, with Rai Bahadur Dilip Narayan
Singh as the landlord. Upon default in payment of rent, Rent
Suit No. 7447 was instituted before the Court of Munsif,
Madhepura, pursuant to which the land, including Khasra No.
1023 of Mauja Chainsigh patti, was auctioned and possession
delivered to the landlord through Execution Case No. 2231 of
1937. Thereafter, the landlord lawfully settled the land in favour
of Dityavati Devi. Rent receipts were regularly issued in her
name. Subsequently, in Partition Case No. 62/1953 it was
decided by the Court of Sub-Judge I, Munger, the land under
Schedule-III, including Khesra No. 1023 measuring seven
kathas and fifteen dhurs, fell in the share of Babu Lal Mahato,
and upon family partition in 1976, the said land devolved into
the share of Vashishtha Narayan Mahato (uncle of the
petitioner) in whose favour Jamabandi was duly created and
Patna High Court CWJC No.17660 of 2021(7) dt.02-02-2026
6/8
continues. There is no illegality in the order and award prepared
in L.A. Case No.185/2014-15 and as such, the same don’t call
for any interference of this Court.
7. Heard the Parties.
8. The petitioner claims that he came in possession of
the land in question after a family partition but the petitioner has
not been able to bring on record any material to show the
detailed description of his share of the land. It is admitted that
the award has been prepared in the name of his uncle,
Vashishtha Narayan Mahato. The petitioner is aggrieved that he
is also entitled for the compensation to the extent of his part of
share as the petitioner’s right under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India is affected and he has sought interference
of this Court.
9. Record reveals that the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Supaul in Land Acquisition Case No. 185/2014-15, vide
order dated 20.09.2015 has not given the opportunity to the
petitioner before preparation of the award, which has been
prepared only in the name of Respondents 2nd set, namely
Dhaneshwar Kamat and Kaleshwar Kamat, compelling the
petitioner to raise objection before the Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Supaul in Case No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17660 of 2021(7) dt.02-02-2026
7/8
02/2016 under Section 64(1) of the Act, 2013. Primarily the
dispute relates between the family members in respect of their
respective share of compensation amount. Section 63 of the Act,
2013 bars the District Court from entertaining any dispute
relating to the land acquisition in respect of which the Collector
or the competent authority is empowered under the Act, 2013.
Further, Section 64 of the Act, 2013 gives opportunity to any
person interested, who has not accepted the award, may file a
written application before the Collector/competent authority as
the case may be. I find it apt to refer Section 64 of the Act,
2013, which is reproduced hereinafter:
“64. Reference to Authority.-(1) Any
person interested who has not accepted the award may,
by written application to the Collector, require that the
matter be referred by the Collector for the determination
of the Authority as the case may be, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount
of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable,
the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under
Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.”
10. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the
case, the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority, Saharsa in Authority Land Acquisition Case
No.02/2016 is hereby quashed and set-aside .
11. The matter is remitted back to the District
Collector- cum – Magistrate, Saharsa to examine the matter
Patna High Court CWJC No.17660 of 2021(7) dt.02-02-2026
8/8
afresh and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner
in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U
Checking your session…