Patna High Court
Baliram SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the Collector's decision is not subject to writ jurisdiction and the petitioner must seek relief before the Arbitrator‑cum‑Commissioner under the National Highway Act, 1956.
Summary
Baliram Singh filed a writ petition seeking immediate payment of compensation for land acquired for the Danapur‑Bihta fly‑over and for demolition of his house, invoking Section 80 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The petition arose from an earlier case (CWJC No.11138 of 2023) where the Collector, Patna, after considering recommendations, declared the land raiyati and ordered further steps, a decision later affirmed on 19‑Oct‑2024. The State argued that the Collector's order is final and that any grievance must be addressed before the Arbitrator‑cum‑Commissioner under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956. The Court observed that the petitioner could approach the designated arbitrator for redress and that the Collector's decision is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the Collector's order on land classification and compensation is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to immediate payment of compensation under Section 80 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
- Whether the petitioner must approach the Arbitrator‑cum‑Commissioner under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 for relief.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- RFCTLARR Act
- National Highway Act
- writ petition
- raiayati land
- arbitrator
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18662 of 2025
======================================================
Baliram Singh Son of Late Sohan Singh, resident of village and P.O.-
Bishunpura, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Competent Authority cum District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
4. The National Highway Authority of India through its Project Director,
Project Implementation Unit, Vivekanand Marg, Boring Road, Patna.
5. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project
Implementation Unit, NHAI, Vivekanand Marg, Boring Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lal Mani Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Dilip Kumar Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-7
For the NHAI : Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Govinda, Advocate
Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 31-03-2026 Heard Mr. Lal Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner, the State as also the NHAI.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ
order or direction directing and commanding the
respondents to pay the petitioner immediately
without any further delay the amount of
Compensation for the land of the petitioner
pertaining to Khata no. 473, Thana no. 53,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18662 of 2025(3) dt.31-03-2026
2/4
Plot/Khesra no. 2470, Area 21 Decimals of Mauza
Mahadevpur Fulari according to Commercial Rate
alongwith 100% Soletium as well as up to date
interest as provided under Section 80 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
2013 (hereinafter to be referred as RF CTLARR, Act,
2013).
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ
directing and commanding the respondents to pay
the petitioner immediately, without any further delay
the amount of compensation for the damages caused
to the petitioner by the respondents by demolishing
the construction / house which was constructed by
the petitioner and was standing over the aforesaid
land of the petitioner, even without paying any
amount of compensation to the petitioner for his
aforesaid land as well as for the said constructions
which has been demolished by the respondents.
(iii) For any other relief / reliefs of which
the petitioner is legally entitled to.”
3. The details of the land in question is/are as follows:
“Khata no. 473, Thana no. 53,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18662 of 2025(3) dt.31-03-2026
3/4
Plot/Khesra no. 2470, Area 21 Decimals of Mauza
Mahadevpur Fulari.”
4. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner moved
before this Court in CWJC No. 11138 of 2023 (Balram Singh vs.
The State & Ors.) which was disposed of on 29.03.2024 with a
direction to the Collector, Patna to decide the matter (Annexure
P/4 to the petition).
5. Accordingly, the Collector, Patna took up the
Raiyatikaran Case No. 01 of 2024-25 (Balram Singh vs The State)
and disposed it of on 19.10.2024 vide a detailed order recording
that in the light of the recommendation made by the Circle Officer,
Bihta and the DCLR, Danapur, the land in question is declared
raiyati and the respondents to take further steps in the matter.
(Annexure-P/5 to the petition).
6. Aggrieved, the present petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
land has been taken over for the purpose of Danapur-Bihta
Flyover. The claim of the petitioner is that some cubicles/shops
were there but ignoring it as also the recommendation of the Six-
men Committee, it has been put in the category of residential land
and accordingly, direction is given to make payment.
8. The respondents have filed their affidavits and
learned State counsel with the help of paragraph nos. 11 and 14
Patna High Court CWJC No.18662 of 2025(3) dt.31-03-2026
4/4
submits that on the basis of the report submitted, the Collector,
Patna has taken decision which needs no interference. Further, if
aggrieved, the petitioner can approach the Arbitrator-cum-
Commissioner, Patna Division under the provisions of Section
3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956.
9. The facts and the submissions have been recorded,
the respondents have detailed out their stand by way of the order
passed by the Collector, Patna.
10. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is well advised
to approach the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Patna Division,
Patna for the redressal of the grievance.
11. Needless to add, if the petitioner is otherwise
eligible for the payment and has accordingly submitted all the
documents to satisfy the respondents, it is high time that the
payment is released in his favour.
12. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.