Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The arbitrator’s order is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Singh, claimed ownership of two parcels of land that were acquired for the widening of National Highway 104 and were classified as agricultural land. His mother had earlier approached the Arbitrator‑cum‑Divisional Commissioner, alleging that the land should be treated as commercial and thus merit higher compensation, but the arbitrator rejected the claim on 15‑01‑2024 for lack of supporting documents. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of that arbitration order and compensation at commercial rates. The State and NHAI contended that the arbitrator’s order was reasoned and based on the evidence, and that the petitioner had not filed an objection under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956. The High Court, after reviewing the submissions, held that the petitioner had failed to establish any differential treatment or merit in his claim and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Arbitrator‑cum‑Divisional Commissioner dated 15‑01‑2024 can be quashed on the ground of procedural lapse.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation at commercial land rates for the acquired land.
- Whether the petitioner complied with the requirement of filing an objection under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956.
Legislation cited
- National Highway Act, 1956 — s. 3A
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- commercial land
- arbitration
- writ petition
- National Highway Act
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18363 of 2025
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar Singh Son of Late Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of
Village- Bhatahan, P.S. Sheyampur Bhatahan, District- Sheohar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate, Sheohar.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Sheohar.
5. The Anchal Adhikari, Dumri Katsari Anchal, District- Sheohar.
6. The National Highway Authority of India, Patna through its Chairman.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Government Pleader (11)
: Ms. Dimpal Kumari, AC to GP-11
For the NHAI : Mr. Gaurav Govinda, Advocate
: Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 31-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant
of following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of appropriate writ/ order
or direction quashing the order dated 15.01.2024
passed in Arbitration (Land Acquisition) case no.
86/2019 passed by the Respondent no. 2 the
Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur who has rejected the case
filed by the petitioner's mother (Rampari Devi)
on the ground that the petitioner did not filed
Objection petition under section-3A of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18363 of 2025(3) dt.31-03-2026
2/4
National Highway Act-1956 as contained in
Annexure-P/7 to this writ application.
(ii) for issuance of appropriate writ/
order or direction commanding the respondents
to make payment of compensation amount to the
petitioner at the rate of commercial land as the
land of the petitioner has been situated in
commercial area.
(iii) for issuance of appropriate writ/
order or direction commanding the respondents
to make payment of compensation amount at
appropriate rate of the land acquired by the
respondents for widening the National Highway
No. 104 (Banjaria-Sheohar).
(iv) for any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner is found entitled in the
opinion of this Hon'ble court.”
3. The petitioner claims to be owner of piece land
having Khata No.273, Khesra No.2913/3424 (area 0.030
hectare) and Khata No. 274, Khesra No. 3380 (area 0.004
hectare) in the village-Bhathan, Circle-Dumri Katsari, District-
Sheohar.
4. The land in question was taken over for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18363 of 2025(3) dt.31-03-2026
3/4
widening of the National Highway-104 (Banjaria-Sheohar) and
accordingly notification issued relating to land acquisition case
no. 01 of 2014-15 by the office of the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Sheohar. The land of the petitioner was put in the
category of agricultural land.
5. Five years later, being aggrieved by the said
categorization, the mother of the petitioner, Rampari Devi
moved before the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur in Arbitration Case No. 86 of 2019
(Rampari Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). It was taken up on
15.01.2024 and the Arbitrator came to the conclusion that though
the claim has been made for treating it as a commercial land, no
document was produced to support the said claim.
6. It further recorded that after the notification was
issued, there was no objection from the petitioner/family
members whereafter it was categorized as agricultural land and
accordingly payments made.
7. In that background, the claim of the petitioner’s
family was negated with the direction to the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Sheohar to move ahead in the matter.
8. Aggrieved, the present writ petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because of delay, an order has been passed and needs to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.18363 of 2025(3) dt.31-03-2026
4/4
quashed.
10. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel
representing ‘the NHAI’ refutes the same and has taken this
Court to the order dated 15.01.2024 to submit that it is a
reasoned order and the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner,
Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur has taken note of the entire facts
and came to the conclusion that no document/evidence has come
forward to support the claim and accordingly, rejected the claim
which needs no interference.
11. This Court has taken note of the entire facts and is
in conformity with the submissions put forward by the learned
counsel for the State as also ‘the NHAI’. The petitioner/family
members have definitely missed the bus. No further point has
been put forward by the petitioner to show that anyone in the
vicinity and/those closed to his land have been treated
differently.
12. In that background, no relief can be extended to
the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…