Patna High Court
Ganesh KaparversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The District Land Acquisition Officer erred in deeming the land as State property; as a settlee under the Bhoodan settlement, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the acquisition.
Summary
Ganesh Kapar filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 05.08.2022 that rejected his claim for compensation for land acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for NH‑527C. The land had been allotted to his father by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee in 1957 and remained in the family’s possession. The District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO) held that the petitioner only had a right of use and that the land was government property, directing him to approach the Arbitrator Commissioner. The High Court found that the DLAO’s reasoning was erroneous, noting that a settlee under a valid Bhoodan settlement is entitled to compensation upon acquisition. Consequently, the Court set aside the 05.08.2022 order, directed the DLAO to pay compensation with interest within twelve weeks, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The petitioner’s entitlement to compensation as a settlee under the Bhoodan settlement after acquisition of his land for a national highway.
- Whether the District Land Acquisition Officer correctly classified the land as State property and denied compensation.
- The jurisdiction of the NHAI to acquire the land without paying compensation.
- The applicability of the arbitrator route for redressal of compensation claims.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- Bhoodan settlement
- National Highway
- civil writ jurisdiction
- settlee rights
- jurisdiction
- arbitrator
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18343 of 2022
======================================================
Ganesh Kapar, Son of Late Jagdeo Kapar, Resident of village - Basudeopur,
Ekari Pirokhar, P.S. - Madhawapur, Distt. - Madhubani (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Madhubani.
2. The Collector of the District (DM), Madhubani.
3. The Circle Officer, Madhawapur, Madhubani.
4. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI),
Darbhanga.
5. The Competent Authority Cum District Land Acquisition Officer, NH 527C
Project, District - Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan (SC-25)
Mr. Arifdaula Siddiqui, AC to SC-25
For the N.H.A.I. : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 18-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC
to the SC-25 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
N.H.A.I.
2. The petitioner has filed present writ application
seeking following reliefs :
(i) Quashing/setting aside the order dt.
05.08.2022 (Annx-11) passed by the Respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.18343 of 2022(3) dt.18-06-2026
2/7
No. 5 in Case No. 01 of 2019-2020 (Ganesh Kapar
Vs. N.H.A.I.) whereby and whereunder the claim
of the petitioner for payment of amount of
compensation has been rejected on unsustainable
ground.
(ii) Directing the Respondent-
authorities to pay the amount of compensation to
the petitioner in accordance with law as the raiyati
land of the petitioner have been acquired by the
authorities (NHAI) pursuant to the Notification
(Annx-6 Series & Annx-7) issued by them.
(iii) Holding and declaring that the
Respondents-N.H. authorities had no jurisdiction
to acquire, and to utilize the lands of the petitioner
without making payment of amount of
compensation to the petitioner when the same land
had been granted in favour of the father of the
petitioner by the Bhoodan Yagna committee long
ago.
(iv) Granting any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioners may be found entitled to.
3. The present fact of the case is that in the year 1957,
the Bhoodan Yagna Committee vide its parcha dt. 10.09.1957
granted the land-in-question in favour of one Jagdeo Kapar, who
is the father of the petitioner. Consequently, after the death of
Jagdeo Kapar, the present petitioner came into the possession of
the said land and had been paying rent to the concerned Anchal
till the year 2017 and had been receiving rent receipts thereof.
Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the Revisional
Patna High Court CWJC No.18343 of 2022(3) dt.18-06-2026
3/7
authority has illegally prepared the revisional survey khatiyan
with respect to the land-in-question in the name of Anabad
Bihar Sarkar and the new plots bearing no. 120 and 121 were
carved out, but in the column of khaifiat the name of the father
of the petitioner was remained shown having been in actual
possession. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a case bearing no. 62
of 2013 in the court of DCLR Benipatti in which after hearing
the parties, the learned Anchala Adhikari passed an order for
making necessary correction. Thereafter, the petitioner came to
know that the part area of the new plots-in-question were
notified by the NHAI for acquisition, for the purpose of
widening and construction of NH-527C. Thereafter, a
notification issued U/S 3D of NH Act was also published in
which the lands of the petitioner were shown to be agricultural,
but the same have been treated as Government land and not as
raiyati lands of the petitioner. The petitioner having being
aggrieved with the aforesaid acquisition by the NHAI and non
payment of amount of compensation, the petitioner had to
approach before this Hon’ble Court vide CWJC No. 23122 of
2019 which was heard and disposed of by this Hon’ble Court by
its order dated 16.12.2019 with direction to the learned District
Land Acquisition Authority to dispose of the petition of the writ-
Patna High Court CWJC No.18343 of 2022(3) dt.18-06-2026
4/7
petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner then filed a
detailed petition before respondent no. 5 requesting therein
inter-alia to pay him the amount of compensation at the
residential rate. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 without
applying its judicial mind rejected the claim of the petitioner for
amount of compensation by its order dated 05.08.2022 passed in
Case No. 01 of 2019-20, therefore, the present writ application.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is restricted to the
fact that the land which has been given to his father through
Bhoodan committee has been acquired for construction of
National Highway and the authority has not paid him a single
amount for the same. From perusal of the documents, it is clear
that the father of the petitioner was a settlee through the
Bhoodan committee and after issuance of parcha in the year
1957, the same was in the possession of the father of the
petitioner and thereafter, his heirs and legal representatives.
What is necessitated in the present writ application was the fact
that the District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the DLAO’) in Case No. 01 of 2019-
2020 passed an order holding that the petitioner has only the
right of use over the said land and therefore, his claim that a
residential house was constructed on it, is not tenable as the land
Patna High Court CWJC No.18343 of 2022(3) dt.18-06-2026
5/7
is completely a government land.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties
and having perused the documents, this Court has observed that
a strange logic has been given by the DLAO, Madhubani where
he has held that the petitioner despite being issued parcha
through Bhoodan committee had only the right of use over the
said land and he had no right and title over the same.
Considering the same, his application was not entertained and
he was directed to approach the Arbitrator Commissioner for
redressal of his grievances.
6. This Court finds substance in the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitrator
would only come into play when an Award would have been
passed however, in the present case, no Award has been passed
and in fact, the Government has completely denied that the
petitioner would be entitled for any compensation.
7. It is a settled law that once the land has been settled
and if need arises and such land is acquired then, the only
process which has to be adopted by the Government is to verify
as to whether the settlement was as per the process and was
carried out by the competent authority and thereafter, if the
competent authority is satisfied then, the compensation of such
Patna High Court CWJC No.18343 of 2022(3) dt.18-06-2026
6/7
amount shall be paid to the settlee. Reference to the letter no.
1211 dated 01.08.2008 issued by the Principal Secretary,
Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna, has been made, which has been brought on record by way
of Annexure-P/13.
8. In such view of the matter, in the opinion of this
Court, the authority i.e. the District Land Acquisition Officer,
Madhubani has erred in observing that the land-in-question
belongs to the State of Bihar and not to the settlee.
9. In view of the above, the order dated 05.08.2022
passed in Case No. 01 of 2019-2020 as contained in Annexure-
11, is set aside.
10. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani
is directed to pay the petitioner the amount of compensation as
he is legally entitled in lieu of the acquisition of the land to the
tune of 07 (seven) kattha and 01 (one) dhur, as detailed in
Annexure-4, along with the statutory interest and other
admissible amount as per the Act.
11. The payment of such amount should be made
within a period of twelve weeks from the receipt/production of a
copy of this order. It goes without saying that the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Madhubani shall take into account the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18343 of 2022(3) dt.18-06-2026
7/7
entire assets including any residential complex standing on the
said land in finalization of the compensation.
12. The present writ application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
deepak/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.