Patna High Court
Shiv Bansh UpadhyayversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary
Shiv Bansh Upadhyay filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and its officials to pay compensation for land acquired for the Jetan‑Chapra Nahar Channel, alleging short‑payment under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner claimed that only part of the compensation for two plots had been paid. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the full compensation had been received. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. The court accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents were liable to pay the balance of compensation for the land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether the petitioner could withdraw the writ petition after receiving the compensation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- mandamus
- withdrawal of petition
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17909 of 2018
======================================================
Shiv Bansh Upadhyay S/o Late Ram Ekbal Upadhyay Resident of Village -
Ward No. 9, Rani Talab, P.S. Rani Talab, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar
4. The District Collector, Patna.
5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Anisabad, Patna.
6. The Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation Flood Control Division, Dehri.
7. The Chief Engineer, Flood Control, Patna.
8. The Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Khagaul.
9. The Executive Engineer, Sone Flood Control Division, Khagaul.
10. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sone Nahar Sub Division, Vikram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of an appropriate
Writ/Writs, direction/directions in the nature of
Mandamus for direction upon the Respondents
to ensure payment of compensation in terms of
the measurement done with respect to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17909 of 2018(2) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
acquisition being Jetan-Chapra Nahar Channel
as contained in Letter No.-81 dated 14.05.2018
whereby and whereunder against 21.854 decimal
of land acquired from Plot No.-1, Khata No.-
138, Thana No.-302, Mauza-Rajipur, the
payment of compensation to the extent of 13
decimal of land has only been made while with
regard to Plot No.-7, Khata No.-236, Thana No.-
302, Muaza-Rajipur, payment of compensation
to the extent of only 16 decimal of land has been
made as against 21.636 decimal of land and in
consequence thereof, be pleased to direct the
determination of compensation to be made in
terms of the provisions under Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
(ii) for any other relief/reliefs which
the Hon'ble Court may grant in general interest
checking these kinds of harassment to the
petitioner by the Government Officials that may
be deemed appropriate and necessary in this
Patna High Court CWJC No.17909 of 2018(2) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
case for protecting the interest and rights of the
petitioners by ensuring the benefits flowing from
the Act.”
3. It has been informed by Mr. Krishna Chandra,
learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of
the writ petition, the compensation amount has been paid and as
such, he may be permitted to withdraw the petition.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…