Patna High Court
Smt. Lakshmi Devi and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to receive the full compensation within four weeks, with interest if payment is delayed.
Summary
The petitioners, Lakshmi Devi and family, claimed ownership of a 670 sq m commercial plot in Barun, Aurangabad, and sought compensation under Land Acquisition Case No. 56 of 2016‑17. An Arbitrator‑cum‑Additional Collector ordered payment on 22 May 2017, but the amount was never disbursed. The NHAI later challenged the award under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, but the challenge was dismissed on 30 April 2019 because the petitioners failed to appear. After a lapse of several years, the petitioners filed a writ petition requesting immediate payment, arguing that no steps had been taken to revive the dismissed order. The High Court observed that the dismissal had not been revived and directed the respondents to clear the entire compensation within four weeks, with statutory interest if payment is delayed. If the amount has already been paid, no further action is required.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to immediate payment of compensation despite the dismissal of the NHAI's challenge in 2019.
- Whether the court can compel the respondents to pay the awarded amount with interest after a prolonged delay.
Legislation cited
- National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3G(5)
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- National Highways Act
- writ petition
- delay
- interest
- arbitration award
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17943 of 2018
======================================================
1. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Anr W/o Late Kailash Prasad,
2. Lalan Prasad, S/o Late Kailash Prasad, Both are resident of Village- Barun,
P.O. and P.S.Anchal- Barun, District- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Collector, Aurangabad, Bihar.
3. The Additional Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad.
4. The Project Director, N.H.2, Baransi Zone, At Banaras U.P.
5. The Sakjham Pradhikari-cum-Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deen Bandhu Singh, Adv.
Ms. Kriti Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan -Sc25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 31-01-2026 Heard Mr. Deen Bandhu Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner duly assisted by Ms. Kriti Kumari and the State.
2. The present application has been preferred:
commanding the respondents to
implement the order dated 22.5.2017 passed
by the court of Arbitrator-cum-Additional
Collector, Aurangabad in L.A.Case
no.56/2016-17 under sections 3G(5) of
N.H.Act 1956 and accordingly prepared a
fresh award or be pleased to pass such an
order or orders which petitioners deem to be
entitled.
3. The petitioner claims to own a piece of land having
Patna High Court CWJC No.17943 of 2018(4) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
following details:
Khata No.- 09;
Plot No.- 825;
Area- 670 Sq. meter within Village Barun
in the district of Aurangabad.
3. The matter relates to the Land Acquisition Case
No. 56 of 2016-17 (Laxmi Devi Vs. Project Director, NH-2,
Varanasi). The petitioner on the point of compensation moved
before the then Arbitrator-cum-Additional Collector,
Aurangabad who vide an order dated 22.05.2017 accepted the
claim of the petitioner that it a commercial land and accordingly,
direction was issued to the Competent Authority to make
payment accordingly.
4. Since no payment made, the writ petition.
5. A Co-ordinate Bench took up the matter on
25.03.2025 and directed the NHAI to file counter affidavit.
6. Today, neither the counter affidavit is there nor the
learned counsel has bothered to appear. Meanwhile, the
petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating that against
the order in question (order dated 22.05.2017) issued by the
Arbitrator-cum-Additional Collector, Aurangabad in L.A. 56
(2016-17), the NHAI moved before the Competent Court under
Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, 1956 which was dismissed on
30.04.2019 by a Competent Court on the ground that the party
Patna High Court CWJC No.17943 of 2018(4) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
who preferred the petition failed to appear.
7. The stand of the petitioner as narrated in the
supplementary affidavit is that this order came to be passed in
the year 2019, we are in the year 2026, till 04.04.2025, when
supplementary affidavit was filed, no step was taken to get the
matter revived and thus, the petitioner is entitled to get the
amount immediately.
8. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of
with the observation that if the challenge to the order which was
dismissed on 30.04.2019 has still not been revived, the
petitioner be cleared the entire amount within a period of four
weeks from today.
9. If the payment has already been made, no step has
to be taken.
10. Failure to do so, the petitioner shall also be
entitled to the statutory interest in accordance with law.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…