Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar Singh and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners must first make a representation before the Collector, and therefore did not grant the writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of eleven landowners from Parsauni Gope, alleged that the government constructed a PCC road over their Raiyati land without notice, acquisition, or compensation, seeking a writ of mandamus to remove the encroachment and obtain compensation. They claimed that the road, originally a narrow 'pagdandi' of 2-4 feet, had been widened without their consent, causing harassment and loss. The State contended that the road had been used for public purposes for decades and that no illegal acquisition occurred. The Court examined whether the construction violated the Land Acquisition Act and whether the petitioners were entitled to relief. It directed the petitioners to file a proper representation with the Collector of Sheohar within four weeks, after which the Collector would adjudicate the matter, and disposed of the writ petition without granting the writ.
Issues considered
- Whether the construction of a PCC road over the petitioners' Raiyati land without acquisition or compensation violates the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus for removal of the encroachment and payment of compensation.
- Whether the road's long-standing public use establishes a public purpose that justifies the construction without formal acquisition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Raiyati land
- public road
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- encroachment
- compensation
- public purpose
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17717 of 2018
======================================================
1. Arvind Kumar Singh S/o Late Gangadhar Prasad Singh
2. Ram Nagina Singh S/o Late Rama Singh
3. Sameer Kumar Singh S/o Shankar Prasad Singh
4. Harinandan Pd. Verma S/o Late Baldeo Lal
5. Bipin Bihari Singh S/o Late Ginish Singh
6. Sanjeev Kumar Singh S/o Late Ramswarth Singh
7. Ram Bahadur Baitha S/o Basa Baitha
8. Ram Vinay Kumar S/o Late Siyaram Gupta
9. Ganesh Kr. Gupta S/o Ramadhar Gupta
10. Chandeshwar Pd. Singh S/o Late Ram Ekbal Singh
11. Ram Chandra Prasad S/o Late Ramdeo Prasad all Petitioners No. 1 to 11
Resident of Village - Parsauni Gope, P.S. - Purnahiya, Block and Circle,
Purnahiya, District - Sheohar, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Revenue &
Land Reforms, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
2. Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of
Bihar,Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Ro
3. The District Magistrate, Sheohar, District - Sheohar, Bihar.
4. The Deputy Collector,Land Reforms, Distt. - Sheohar, Bihar.
5. The S.D.O. Sheohar, Distt.- Sheohar,Bihar.
6. The Circle Officer, Puranhiya, Distt. - Sheohar, Bihar.
7. The Executive Engineer, Rural works Department, Sheohar, Distt. - Sheohar,
Bihar.
8. Ravindra Kumar Singh S/o Not known Contractor, Rural Works Department,
Sheohar, Resident of Village - Paharpur, P.S. Shyam Pur Bhatha, Distt. -
Sheohar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate
: Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 05-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17717 of 2018(5) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
grant of following relief(s):
“for issuance of a writ in nature of
Mandamus or appropriate writ/orders to direct
the respondent authorities to get the
encroachment on Raiyati land of petitioners
removed which is caused by construction of PCC
road by Government Authorities without any
notice or without obtaining the land concerned
in Land Acquisition Act or under any prevailing
laws and without giving any compensation
thereof to petitioners and without their consent
and/or the petitioners further seek indulgence of
this Hon'ble Court to pass such order/orders
directing the concerned authorities to make
payment of compensation to petitioners at
present prevailing rates of the land in
accordance with law as if it was an emergency
acquisition, if the encroachment is not removed,
and further, petitioners be also paid
compensation for unnecessary harassment and
sufferings as well as cost of litigation.”
3. The grievance of the petitioners are that though
Patna High Court CWJC No.17717 of 2018(5) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
they had allowed limited access to the said use of ‘pagdandi’, it
has been broaden and black soling done without their consent.
4. Learned State counsel on the other hand dispute it
and submit that for decades, it was being used for public
purposes.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that it
was 2 to 4 feet area that was being used but the same has been
enlarged without his permission. He submits that to settle the
dust, they are ready to approach the Collector, Sheohar
(respondent no.3) alongwith necessary documents to support
their claim.
6. Learned State counsel has no objection.
7. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of
allowing the petitioners to prefer a proper representation
alongwith supporting documents before the Collector, Sheohar
(respondent no.3) within a period of four weeks and if such
petition is filed, the Collector, Sheohar (respondent no.3) shall
be hearing the parties and taking the matter to its logical
conclusion, at an earliest.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.