Patna High Court
Sanjeev Kumar,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition was dismissed as withdrawn because, per the Supreme Court decision, the acquisition does not lapse when compensation has been paid despite the absence of possession.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of landowners, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition of their lands under Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 2/6 of 1995-1996 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because possession had not been taken, and they asked for a restraining order against forceful possession. The respondents, including the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) and the State, relied on a Supreme Court decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, which held that the acquisition does not lapse if compensation has been paid even though possession is not yet taken. The learned counsel for the petitioners accepted this precedent and sought to withdraw the petition. The Court, noting the Supreme Court’s ruling, allowed the withdrawal and disposed of the writ petition. Consequently, no further relief was granted and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Does a land acquisition proceeding lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession is not taken but compensation has been paid?
- Is the writ petition seeking declaration of lapse and restraining possession maintainable in view of the Supreme Court precedent?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- Section 24(2)
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- possession
- compensation
- writ petition
- Supreme Court precedent
- withdrawal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19756 of 2019
======================================================
1. Sanjeev Kumar, son of Gorelal Singh, Resident of Village- Bihat, Ward No.
15, Police Station- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
2. Sita Ram Singh, son of Late balo Singh, Resident of Village- Bihat,
Sadanandpur Tola, Ward No. 15, Police Station- Barauni, District-
Begusarai.
3. Ranjeet Kumar, son of Late Ram Sagar Singh, Resident of Village- Bihat,
Tola Maksaspur, Ward No. 15, Police Station- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
4. Kapeeldeo Bhagat, son of Late Ragho Bhagat, Resident of Village-
Habaspur, Police Station- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
5. Jagdis Bhagat, son of Late Snehi Bhagat, Resident of Village- Habaspur,
Police Station- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
6. Uday Bhushan, son of Late Jagdish Prasad, Resident of Village- Pupraur,
Police Station- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.
4. The Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer, Begusarai.
7. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (B.I.A.D.A.), Patna
through its Secretary, Patna.
8. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(B.I.A.D.A.), Bihar, Patna.
9. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(B.I.A.D.A.), Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amar Nath Singh, Advocate
For the BIADA : Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate
For the State : AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 13-01-2026 Heard Mr. Amar Nath Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and the State as also the BIADA.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19756 of 2019(5) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions to the
respondents to declare the acquisition of
land of the petitioners and others similarly
situated persons under Land Acquisition
Proceeding No. 2/6 of 1995-1996 lapsed as
per provisions contained in Section 24 (2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(For short the Act of 2013) as the possession
has not been taken and to further restrained
the respondents to take forceful possession
over the lands in question against the
provisions of law and for any other
order/orders, direction/directions as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the
mentioned facts and circumstances of this
case.
3. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19756 of 2019(5) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
BIADA and learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in
view of the statement made in paragraph-11 wherein the order
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority vs Manohar Lal & Ors. reported in (2020)8 SCC
129 wherein it has been observed that even though actual
possession after the acquisition has not been taken over the by
the authority, if the compensation has been paid, the proceeding
of acquisition would not lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013
Act, he may be permitted to withdraw the petition.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as
withdrawn.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…