Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the land acquisition proceeding has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the order of 29‑Oct‑2025 is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Singh, sought a writ of certiorari to quash a 29‑Oct‑2025 order rejecting his representation for release of 0.75 acre of land acquired in 1972‑73 for a girls' school that was later built elsewhere. He contended that the acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because physical possession was never taken and compensation was never paid. The State argued that the award was made, possession was delivered in 1981 and the process was complete. The Court examined the statutory requirement that acquisition is not complete without actual possession, noting the absence of any panchanama or kabjepatti and the continuous issuance of a Land Possession Certificate to the petitioner. Relying on the Kolkata Municipal Corporation decision and other precedents, the Court held that the acquisition had indeed lapsed and the 2025 order was void. It directed that the award be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and that any future acquisition must be initiated afresh under that Act. The petition was disposed of with no cost.
Issues considered
- The acquisition proceeding under the 1894 Act is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession is not taken and compensation is unpaid.
- Whether the State has complied with the statutory requirement of taking physical possession (panchanama/kabjepatti) for the land in question.
- Whether the 2025 order rejecting the petitioner's representation can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration of lapse and release of the land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 30, 48(2), 6
- National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3‑C(1), 3‑D(3), 3‑E(1)
- Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 — s. 8, 9
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 24(2)
Subjects
- land acquisition
- lapse of acquisition
- Section 24(2) 2013 Act
- possession
- compensation
- certiorari
- declaration of lapse
- release of land
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20547 of 2025
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Naresh Singh Resident of Singh Kothi,
Old G.T. Road, P.O. and P.S.- Aurangabad Town, District- Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director of Acquisition, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, District- Aurangabad.
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad.
6. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Aurangabad,
Bihar.
7. The Education Department, Government of Bihar through its Additional
Chief Secretary, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate
Mr.Apurv Harsh, Advocate
Mr.Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Priyanshu, Advocate
Ms. Jaya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Gautam Kumar Yadav, AC to GP-26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-04-2026
Heard Mr. Manu Tripurari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, learned AC to GP-26.
(A) PRAYER:
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
2/60
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari or order or direction to quash the
order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Land Revenue
Department vide Memo No. 1733, by way of
which the Respondent No. 2 has rejected the
representation of the petitioner for release of
Petitioner's land from land acquisition
proceedings;
(ii) for a declaration that the Land
Acquisition Proceedings being L.A. Case No.
20/72-73 initiated under the "Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to
petitioner's land admeasuring 0.75 Acre
comprised in Khata No. 26, Kheara No. 307
has lapsed in view of section 24(2) of Right
To Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation,
Resettlement Act, 2013 and upon failure of
the Respondents to take physical possession;
(iii) for a direction to the respondents to pay
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
3/60
compensation to the Petitioner under Section
48(2) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for
the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding;
(iv) and/or for any other relief, for which the
petitioner may be found entitled to in the
facts & circumstances of the present case.
(B) FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The matter relates to a piece of land, the details of
which is/are as follows:
(i) khata no. 26;
(ii) kheshra no. 307;
(iii) thana no. 560;
(iv) circle and district-Aurangabad;
(v) area 0-75 decimals.
4. A proposal was made by the Executive Engineer,
Building Department, Aurangabad for acquisition of land
admeasuring 2 acres and 32 Decimal for the construction of
Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Aurangabad. This led to
L.A. Case No. 20/72-73 initiated under the Land Acquisiiton
Act, 1894 (henceforth for short ‘The Act’) out of 2.32 acres that
was to be acquired, 0.75 Acres belonged to the petitioner’s
father which was also sought to be acquired.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
4/60
5. A declaration was made on 11.08.1972. The notices
were served upon the land owners whereafter the Department of
Revenue (Acquisition Section) published a declaration under
section 6 of ‘the Act’ in the official gazette declaring that the
land is required for the purpose of construction of Government
Girls Middle School (henceforth for short 'the School').
6. Pursuant thereto, a land admeasuring 2:32 acres
comprised in Thana no 560, Khata No. 13 and 26, Khesra No.
306 and 307 was acquired and, the Land Acquisition Officer
made the award under Section 11 of ‘the Act’. The land of the
petitioner remained litigated in which order of the competent
Court came only on 04.02.1994.
7. In the meantime, 'the School' was constructed at
Dharnidhar Road one kilometer away from the proposed site. It
is admitted fact that the compensation was given/received by all
the land owners except the petitioner's father and the
compensation money was deposited with the Revenue
Department in name of the father of the petitioner namely, Ram
Naresh Prasad Singh. Another admitted fact is that the land
always remained with the petitioners’ family and it was never
taken over by the respondents.
8. It is to be noted that vide letter no. 123 DL
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
5/60
12.01.1979, the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Bihar (henceforth for short, ‘the Department’) came up with the
notification stating that the purpose for which the land is
acquired, if it lapses, then in that case, the acquired land can be
returned to the land owners. At this juncture, it is important to
incorporate that the land of the petitioner was neither taken over
by the respondents nor ever utilized for construction of 'the
School' which as stated came up on a different land.
9. Further case of the petition is that on 21.08.2002,
the petitioner filed a representation for the release of the land or
in the alternative make payment of compensation stating that the
construction of ‘the school’ has already taken place at a different
place, namely, Dharnidhar Road, Aurangabad and the
acquired land still remains unutilized. This also amounts to
waiver and acquiescence with respect to the non-utilization of
the land of the Petitioner for the purpose, it was notified for.
10. The case is that pursuant thereto, the Collector,
Aurangabad vide letter no. 76 dated 16.07.2004 and addressed
to the Commissioner cum Secretary of ‘the Department’ made
recommendation for the release of the land (Annexure-P/9 to the
petition).
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
6/60
11. Letter no. 76 dated 16.07.2004 is incorporated
hereinbelow:
i=kad%& 76 Hkw0 Hk&v0] fnukad& 16-7-2004
lsok esa]
vk;qDRk ,oa lfpo
jktLo ,oa Hkwfelq/kkj foHkkx]
fcgkj] iVukA
fo"k;%& jktdh; dU;k e/; fo|ky; ]vkSjaxkckn ds fy, vftZr Hkwfe ls
iapkjh dks okil djus ds laca/k esaA
egk'k;]
mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd fo"k;kafdr iz;kstu gsrq
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] Hkou izeaMy] x;k ds vf/k;kpuk i= ij Hkw&vtZu
okn la0& 20@72&73 ls ekStk&vkSjaxkckn] Fkkuk ua0&560 esa [kkrk
la0&13] [ksljk la0&306 esa 1-22 ,dM rFkk [kkrk la0&26] [ksljk
la0&307 esa 1-10 ,dM dqy jdck 2-32 ,dM+ gS] Hkwfe vtZu dh xbZA
bl tehu dk LokfeRo vf/k;kph foHkkx dks lkSaik x;k ijUrq iapk;jh us
vftZr tehu dk eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr ugha fd;k vkSj iapkjh Lo0 jke
ujs'k flag dk eqvkotk jkf'k 16560 :0 vkj0Mh0 esa tek dj fn;k x;k
gSA
vkosnd Jh lquhy dqekj flag firk LO0 jke ujs'k flag us
vftZr Hkwfe tks [kkrk la0&26 [ksljk la0&307 esa 0-75 ,dM+
fdLe&/kugj gS] dh okilh gsrq] tks Lo0 jke ujs'k flag ds uke ls ntZ
gS] vkosnu fn;s gSaA
vf/k;kph vf/kdkjh] dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] Hkou izeaMy
vkSjaxkckn us vius i=kad&496 fnukad 7-6-2000 ds ek/;e ls lwfpr
fd;s gSa fd vftZr tehu dh vko';drk vc ugha jg xbZ gS D;ksa fd
fo|ky; Hkou dk fuEkkZ.k vU;= fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl tehu dh mUgsa
vc vko';drk ugha gSA
bl laca/k esa izkFkfed] lsdsUMjh ,oa o;Ld f'k{kk foHkkx
fcgkj] iVuk tks jktdh; dU;k e/; fo|ky; ds fu;a=h foHkkx gksrs gS
ds i=kad&1280 fnukad 2-8-03 ds }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd pwafd
vf/k;kpuk f'k{kk foHkkx ls ugha fn;k x;k gS blfy, f'k{kk foHkkx ds
fdlh izdkj dk funs'k dh vko';drk ugha gSA i= dh izfr layXuA
jktLo foHkkx i=kad&123 Mh-,y- ,- @uhfr fnukad 12-1-74 ds vuqlkj
vftZr tehu dh vko';drk vf/k;kph foHkkx dks ugha jgus ij
Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ds vkyksd esa lacaf/kr jS;r dks tehu
okil fd;k tkuk pkfg,@ iz'uxr ekeys esa vf/k;kph foHkkx Hkou
izeaMy@ f'k{kk foHkkx us viuh lgefr iznku dj nh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa
lacaf/kr jS;r dks vftZr tehu 0-75 ,dM+ okil djus laca/kh vf/klwpuk
Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&48 ds rgr dh tk ldrh gSA
vr% mi;qZDr i= ds vkyksd esa izlaxk/khu Hkwfe jktLo
foHkkx dks vkSipkfjd :i ls okil djrs gq, lacaf/kr Hkw&/kkjh dks vftZr
tehu vf/klwpuk ds ek/;e ls okil djus vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
fo'oklHkktu
g0@& g0@& g0@&
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
7/60
14-7-04 14-7-2004 15-7-04
ftyk Hkw0 vtZu ink0 vij lekgrkZ lekgrkZ] vkSjaxkckn
vkSjaxkckn
( emphasis added )
12. In response, vide letter dated 31.07.2004, the
Director, Land Acquisition, Patna wrote a letter to the
Collector, Aurangabad made query and further recorded that
the acquired land can be returned to the land owners through
"Deed of Conveyance with a condition that land owners further
will not claim any damages with respect to subject property
(Annexure-P/10 to the petition).
13. Letter no. 1008 dated 31.07.2004 is
incorporated hereinbelow:
i= la0%& 15@Mh0,y0,0vkSjaxkckn&16@94& 1008@ jk0
fcgkj ljdkj
jktLo ,oa Hkwfe&lq/kkj foHkkx
¿Hkw&vtZu funs'kky;À
izs"kd% ds0ds0 egrks]
funs'kd] Hkw&vtZuA
lsok esa]
lekgRrkZ
vkSjaxkcknA
iVuk] fnukad& 31-7-04
fo"k;%& jktdh; dU;k e/; fo|ky; ]vkSjaxkckn ds fy, vftZr Hkwfe ls
iapkVh dks okil djus ds laca/k esaA
egk'k;]
mi;qZDRk fo"k;d vkids i=kad&68] fnukad&7-7-04 ,oa
i=kad&76] fnukad&16-7-04 ds izlax esa dguk gS fd fuEukafdr fcUnqvksa
ij ,d Li"V izfrosnu ,oa izLrko izeaMyh; vk;qDr ds ek/;e ls
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
8/60
ljdkj dks miyC/k djkus dh d`ik dh tk;A
1- Hkw&vtZuokn la0&20@72&73 }kjk vftZr dh xbZ Hkwfe
vkikr izfdz;k ds varxZr vftZr dh xbZ Fkh vFkok lk/kkj.k izfdz;k ds
rgrA vxj lk/kkj.k izfdz;k ds varxZr vftZr dh xbZ Fkh] rks fuxZr
vf/klwpuk@vf/k?kks"k.kk ,oa ftyk xtV dh izfr miyC/k djk;h tk;A
2- vf/k;kph foHkkx ls izkIr vf/k;kpuk&i= dh izfr ,oa
vU; dkxtkr Hkh miyC/k djk;k tk;A
3- vf/k;kph foHkkx dks vftZr Hkwfe] ftldk LokfeRo lkSaik
x;k Fkk] dk Hkh izfr miyC/k djk;h tk;A
4- ;fn 2-32 ,dM+ vftZr Hkwfe esa jktdh; dU;k e/; fo|ky;]
vkSjaxkckn dk fuekZ.k uk gksdj vU;= gqvk gS] rks 'ks"k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa
Hkh eqvkotk Hkqxrku dh fLFkfr Li"V dh tk; rFkk tehu dk mi;ksx
dSls gks jgk gS \
5- 2-32 ,dM+ vftZr Hkwfe esa fdrus Hkw/kkjh lfEefyr Fks rFkk
fdrus dks eqvkotk dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k Fkk] izR;sd dks
fdruh&fdruh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA
6- okilh ds ekeys esa dk;Zikfydk vuqns'k&104 ds v/khu
okil dh tkus okyh Hkwfe MhM vkWQ fjdksUHksUl (Deed of
Reconvance) }kjk gh Hkw/kkfj;ksa dks okil dh tk ldrh gSA blfy,
MhM vkWQ fjdksUHksUl dk izk:i rhu izfr;ksa esa ftlesa vf/k;kph foHkkx
dk gLrk{kj ,oa lekgRrkZ ds gLrk{kj ds lkFk izeaMyh; vk;qDr ds
ek/;e ls Hkstk tk;] ftlds varxZr okil dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dks Hkw/kkjh
ls bl vk'k; dk ,d 'kiFk&i= Hkh izkIr dj fy;k tk; fd fdlh
izdkj dh {kfriwfRrZ dk nkok ugha djsaxsA ;fn Hkw/kkjh dks eqvkotk dk
Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS] rks ml jkf'k dks Vªstjh pkyku ls tek djkdj
pkyku dh izfr Hkh layXu fd;k tk;A
fo'oklHkktu
g0&31@7@2004
¼ds0ds0 egrks½
funs'kd] Hkw&vtZuA
( emphasis added )
14. The further case of the petitioner is that vide
letter no. 93 dated 09.10.2006, a notice was issued by the
office of District Magistrate cum Collector, Aurangabad
informing that the land measuring 2.32 acres was acquired for
the construction of school building but it has already been
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
9/60
constructed at a different place. It was further recorded that
considering the letter of Director, Land Acquisition, Patna
vide letter no. 1904 dated 19.08.2026, if any institution is in
the need of land for public purpose, the concerned department
must inform by 26.10.2006 so that the further proceeding may
be initiated [ (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition).]
15. It is again important to incorporate the letter no.
93 dated 11.10.2006 as below:
dk;kZy; ftyk inkf/kdkjh ,oa legrkZ] vkSjaxkckn]
¼ftyk Hkw&vtZu 'kk[kk½
foHkkxh; lwpuk
,rn }kjk lwfpr fd vkSjaxkckn ftykUrxZr dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark]
Hkou izeaMy] vkSjaxkckn dh vf/k;kpuk ij jktdh; dU;k e/; fo|ky;]
vkSjaxkckn ds Hkou fuekZ.k gsrq fuEu fyf[kr C;ksjs dh tehu vftZr dh
xbZ gS%&
xzke Fkkuk ua0 [kkrk ua0 [ksljk ua0 jdck
vkSjaxkckn 560 13 & 306 & 1-22
26 & 307 & 1-10
2-32
vc dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] Hkou izeaMy] vkSjaxkckn }kjk lwfpr
fd;k x;k gS fd dU;k e/; fo|ky; dk Hkou fuekZ.k nwljs LFky ij
fd;k tk pqdk gS QyLo:i vftZr tehu dh mUgsa vko';drk ugha gSA
dk;Z fo'ks"k gsrq tehu dh vko';drk ugha jgus ds dkj.k ewy jS;r ds
vuqjks/k ij vftZr tehu dh okilh dh izfdz;k izkjaHk dh xbZ gSA
funs'kd] Hkw&vtZu] fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad&1904@jk0] fnukad&
19-8-06 ds vkyksd esa lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vxj yksd iz;kstu gsrq
fdlh foHkkx] fudk;] dsUnzh; midze vkfn dks mDr Hkw&[k.M dh
vko';drk gks rks fnukad& 26-10-06 rd v|ksgLrk{kjh dks lwfpr djsa
rkfd vxzsrj dkjokbZ dh tk ldsA
bl lwpuk dh ,d izfr lekgj.kky;] O;ogkj U;k;ky] ftyk
ifj"kn] uxj ifj"kn ,oa vuqeaMy dk;kZy; ds lwpuk iV~V ij izdkf'kr
djsaA
g0@& g0@& g0@&
ftyk Hkw&vtZu ink0 vij lekgrkZ lekgrkZ] vkSjaxkckn
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
10/60
Kkikad& 93¼Hkq0½@Hkw&v0] fnukad& 11@10@2006
izfrfyfi funs'kd] Hkw&vtZu] fcgkj] jktLo ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj foHkkx]
fcgkj] iVuk dks muds i=kad&1904@jk0 fnukad 19-08-06 ds vkyksd esa
lwpukFkZ izsf"kr ,oa muls vuqjks/k gS fd lHkh foHkkxh;@fudk;ksa@midzeksa
ds v/;{kksa dks vius Lrj ls lwfpr djus dh d`ik dh tk;A
g0@& g0@& g0@&
ftyk Hkw&vtZu ink0 vij lekgrkZ lekgrkZ] vkSjaxkckn
16. The petitioner meanwhile continued with the
payment of compensation and/or the release of the land.
However, no steps whatsoever was taken by the respondents.
Meanwhile, the Principal Secretary of ‘the Department’
thereafter vide letter no. 15 dated 10.07 2008 wrote to the all
the District Land Acquisition Officers of the State asking them
for the status of acquired lands as also to submit the supervision
report.
17. In response, the District Land Acquisition Officer,
Aurangabad submitted the supervision report with respect to the
aforesaid land acquisition case and further recorded in the
supervision report that the land admeasuring 2.32 acres which
was acquired in 1971-72 has not been used for any public
purpose and remains unutilized (Annexure-P/6 to the writ
petition).
18. The case of the petitioner is that since the
possession of the land was never taken from him nor the
compensation amount was ever paid, hence in terms of Section
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
11/60
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Re-rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, (henceforth for short ‘the 2013 Act’) the proceeding has
lapsed as it has been specifically stipulated in the aforesaid
provision that in a case of land acquisition proceeding initiated
under ‘the Act’ where an Award has been made under Section 11
and 5 years or more has elapsed but physical possession of the
land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid then
the said proceeding shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate government if so want shall initiate the proceedings
of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
19. Section 24 of 'the 2013 Act' read as follows:
24. Land acquisition process under Act
No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have
lapsed in certain cases.-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),-
(a) where no award under section 11
of the said Land Acquisition Act has
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
12/60
been made, then, all provisions of
this Act relating to the determination
of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said
section 11 has been made, then such
proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the said Land
Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has
not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-section (1), in case of land
acquisition proceedings initiated under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of
1894), where an award under the said
section 11 has been made five years or
more prior to the commencement of this
Act but the physical possession of the land
has not been taken or the compensation
has not been paid the said proceedings
shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses,
shall initiate the proceedings of such land
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
13/60
acquisition afresh in accordance with the
provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been
made and compensation in respect of a
majority of land holdings has not been
deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries
specified in the notification for
acquisition under section 4 of the said
Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
20. Thus the contention is that since the proceeding of
the land in question, which was initiated in the year 1972 but
neither the physical possession was ever taken nor
compensation paid to the Petitioner and the admitted fact being
he remained in continuous possession and Land Possession
Certificate regularly issued by the revenue authorities, the award
so far as the petitioner is concerned, shall be deemed to have
lapsed.
21. The case is that the petitioner lastly represented in
the year 2014 whereafter, C.W.J.C. No. 5894 of 2017 (Sunil
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
14/60
Kumar Singh vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) was preferred
before the Patna High Court.
22. The writ application came to be disposed of on
16.05.2025 with the following observation in paragraphs 16 to
23:
16. Having heard the parties and
perusing the records of the case, the
following points have come up for
consideration which are as follows:
(i) the land in question was acquired
for the construction of a Girls School;
(ii) the compensation amount was not
paid/received by the petitioner's
father;
(iii) the Girls School now stand at
Dharnidhar Road, Aurangabad;
(iv) the land is not required for any
other public purpose by any
Department/Corporation/Central
Government despite the notices
published;
(v) despite the positive
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
15/60
recommendation of the Collector,
Aurangabad, the Department has
chosen not to take the final decision.
17. While filing the counter affidavit
after seven long years, that too at the
District level and not by the
Department, the respondents chose
not to categorically deny the
contention in the paragraph 20 of the
writ petition made by the petitioner
that till date, neither physical
possession has been taken nor
compensation paid/received. As
recorded above, ‘the Department’
failed to file any reply.
18. The facts have been recorded, the
petitioner has based his claim on the
basis of letter no. 123 dated
12.01.1979 issued by ‘the
Department’, as recorded above, the
same has not been commented upon
by the respondent in its counter
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
16/60
affidavit. A valid point has been put
forward by the learned Senior
Counsel that the land is in their
possession, remains unsued, the
physical possession is with them and
there is recommendation of the
Collector, Aurangabad which need
immediate consideration by ‘the
Department’.
19. Annexure-11 Series of the reply to
the counter affidavit shows the Land
Possession Certificate (LPC) is still
running in the name of the petitioner
as issued on 23.04.2025.
20. This Court has also taken note of
the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Kolkata Municipal
Corporation (supra) wherein it has
recorded that when the actual
possession has not been taken, the
acquisition is not completed.
21. As recorded above, despite
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
17/60
passage of seven long years after the
writ petition was filed, the respondent
nos. 1 to 3 failed to file counter
affidavit. This Court, in that
background. has two options, either
to adjourn the matter after imposing
cost on 'the Department' for their
failure to file reply and/or to direct it
to take a decision at an earliest.
22. Since the matter is of the year
2017, this Court with the consent of
parties intends to dispose of the writ
petition with the following
directions:
(i) the petitioner shall be preferring
a fresh application along with all
the connecting/supporting
documents/Annexures before the
respondent no. 1, the Principal
Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms. Patna, Bihar
within next two weeks;
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
18/60
(ii) on the receipt of the said petition
with documents supporting the case,
the respondent no: I shall be taking
up the matter and after noticing all
the necessary parties, and hearing
them/perusing the records shall take
the matter to its logical conclusion
preferably within a period of three
months from the date, the petitioner
files the fresh petition.
23. The writ petition is disposed of
with aforesaid observation. No cost.
23. This followed the representation dated 28.05.2025
(Annexure-P/2 to the petition) preferred by the petitioner before
the respondent Principal Secretary of ‘the Department’.
24. As the respondents failed to take decision, MJC
no. 3145 of 2025 was preferred.
25. Thereafter vide a reasoned order vide memo no.
1733 dated 29.10.2025 passed by the Additional Chief
Secretary of ‘the Department the representation of the
petitioner was rejected amongst other on the ground that it is
needed for the construction of the playground/ toilets for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
19/60
school children as informed vide letter dated 20.09.2025 and as
such, it cannot be released. (Annexure-P/14 to the petition).
26. MJC No. 3145 of 2025 thereafter was disposed of
on 07.11.2025 after taking note of disposal of writ petitions after
granting liberty to challenge the order dated 29.10.2025.
27. This followed the present petition.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
admitted facts are that:
(i) the acquisition took place in the
year 1972-73;
(ii) the matter remained litigated up
till 1994 before a competent civil
court;
(iii) in between 'the school came up
at a different place one kilometer
from the land in question;
(iv) thereafter, from 1994 till the
year 2014, the petitioner kept on
representing before the respondents
authorities to either to make
payment or to release the land.
(v) the petitioner always had the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
20/60
physical possession of the land and
the revenue authorities kept on
issuing Land Possession Certificate
the last being on 23.04.2025.
29. Further, the Collector, Aurangabad after getting
reports from the different state government agencies of the
district including the Education Department came to the
conclusion that the land in question is/are not needed for them
and as such, recommendation vide letter no.76 dated 16.07.2004
for the release of the land.
30. The submission is that:
(i) despite the representations
preferred between the year 1994 to
2014, the respondents never took step
to ensure that the payment is made to
the petitioner to it is released in his
favour considering that school has
come up at the different place and is
not needed and further the petitioner
always remained in its physical
possession;
(ii) not only it remained in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
21/60
peaceful physical possession of the
petitioner, the revenue authorities kept
on issuing rent receipts;
(iii) however, after the Court in its last
order referred the matter to ‘the
Department’ for taking decision, for
the first time, vide letter no. 1050
dated 20.09.2025 has been provided
from the Education Department that
the land is needed for amongst the
other playground/toilet purposes of
the school;
(iv) the land of the petitioner is more
than one kilometer away from the
existing school and it is really
unbelievable that the students shall be
using toilets one kilometer away.
31. The case of the petitioner is that actually, the letter
has been procured only to overcome the earlier recommendation
made by the Collector, Aurangabad for the release of the land as
the different agencies informed that it is not needed. The
submission is that the date of the letter (20.09.2025) clearly
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
22/60
shows that from five decades after the school was constructed,
no agency needed the land rent after the order was passed by
Patna High Court (16.05.2025) which followed the
representation on 28.05.2025 that the letter showing need was
brought on record (20.09.2025).
32. The submission is that in any case, as the
petitioners always remained in physical possession of the land
following 'the 2013 Act' it deemed to have lapsed and as such,
the respondents will have to initiate fresh proceeding if at all
they need the land and not otherwisde.
33. In support of the case, the petitioner has relied on
a case of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal
Kumar Shah & Ors. reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 with
reference to paragraph 33.5 to 33.7 which read as follows:
33.5. The Right of restitution or fair
compensation
33.5.1. A person's right to hold and
enjoy property is an integral part to the
constitutional right under Article 300-A.
Deprivation or extinguishment of that
right is permissible only upon
restitution, be it in the form of monetary
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
23/60
compensation, rehabilitation or other
similar means. Compensation has
always been considered to be an integral
part of the process of acquisition;
33.5.2. Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 8 and 9
of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section
23 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, and Sections 3-G and 3-H of the
National Highways Act, 1956 are the
statutory incorporations of the right to
restitute a person whose land has been
compulsorily acquired;
33.5.3. Our courts have not only
considered that compensation is
necessary. but have also held that a fair
and reasonable compensation is the sine
qua non for any acquisition process;
33.6. The Right to an efficient and
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
24/60
expeditious process
33.6.1. The acquisition process is
traumatic for more than one reason. The
administrative delays in identifying the
land, conducting the enquiry and
evaluating the objections, leading to a
final declaration, consume time and
energy. Further, passing of the award,
payment of compensation and taking
over the possession are equally time-
consuming. It is necessary for the
administration to be efficient in
concluding the process and within a
reasonable time. This obligation must
necessarily form part of Article 300-A.
33.6. The Right to an efficient and
expeditious process
33.6.1. The acquisition process is
traumatic for more than one reason. The
administrative delays in identifying the
land, conducting the enquiry and
evaluating the objections, leading to a
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
25/60
final declaration, consume time and
energy. Further, passing of the award,
payment of compensation and taking
over the possession are equally time-
consuming. It is necessary for the
administration to be efficient in
concluding the process and within a
reasonable time. This obligation must
necessarily form part of Article 300-A.
33.6.2. Sections 5-A(1), 6, 11-A and 34
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Sections 6(1-A) and 9 of the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections
4(2), 7(4), 7(5), 11(5), 14, 15(1). 16(1),
19(2), 25, 38(1), 60(4), 64 and 80 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 and Sections 3-C(1), 3-D(3) and 3-
E(1) of the National Highways Act,
1956, prescribe for statutory frameworks
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
26/60
for the completion of individual steps in
the process of acquisition of land within
stipulated timelines.
33.6.3. On multiple occasions, upon
failure to adhere to the timelines
specified in law, the courts have set
aside the acquisition proceedings
33.7. The Right of conclusion
33.7.1. Upon conclusion of process of
acquisition and payment of
compensation, the State takes
possession of the property in normal
circumstances. The culmination of an
acquisition process is not in the
payment of compensation, but also in
taking over the actual physical
possession of the land. If possession is
not taken, acquisition is not complete.
With the taking over of actual
possession after the normal procedures
of acquisition, the private holding is
divested and the right, title and interest
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
27/60
in the property. along with possession is
vested in the State. Without final
vesting, the State's, or its beneficiary's
right, title and interest in the property is
inconclusive and causes lot of
difficulties. The obligation to conclude
and complete the process of acquisition
is also part of Article 300-A
33.7.2. Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 5
of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Inimovable Property Act, 1952,
Sections 37 and 38 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3-
D3-E of the National Highways Act,
1956, statutorily recognise this right of
the acquirer.
33.7.3. This step of taking over of
possession has been a matter of great
judicial scrutiny and this Court has
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
28/60
endeavoured to construe the relevant
provisions in a way which ensures non-
arbitrariness in this action of the
acquirer22, For that matter, after
taking over possession, the process of
land acquisition concludes with the
vesting of the land with the authority
concerned. The culmination of an
acquisition process by vesting has been
a matter of great importance. On this
aspect, the courts have given a large
number of decisions as to the time,
method and manner by which vesting
takes place.
(emphasis added)
34. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this
Court to paragraph-19 of the representation to show that the
land possession certificate running in the name of the petitioner
was last issued on 23.04.2025 and the documents were made
part of the said representation as Annexure-11 series before the
respondent authorities.
35. The contention is that when the possession of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
29/60
land was never taken for the last five decades and always
remained with the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid order of
Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra), the culmination of the
acquisition never took place and thus the acquisition was not
complete. In that background, the petitioner is entitled to the
release of the rent.
36. The second order of the petitioner is that of the
Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Sakharam
Govinda Kadam & Ors. and analogues cases vs. The State of
Maharastra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 5854 of 2015) which
was taken up pursuant to the remand from the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Special Appeal to Leave No. 4551 of 2018
with the direction to take note of the judgment rendered in the
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.
37. In the said case Sakharam Govinda Kadam
(supra), in the earlier round of litigation, the Bombay High
Court had allowed the writ petition by a common judgment and
order dated 02.05.2017 taking note of ‘the 2013 Act’ as also that
neither compensation was paid nor possession of the properties
taken over. After the remand, it was taken up alongwith
analogues cases and allowed on 10.07.2025 after holding that
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
30/60
the acquisition has lapsed following ‘the 2013 Act’ though
granting liberty to initiate fresh proceeding u/s ‘the 2013 Act’ as
per section 24(2) of 'the Act'.
38. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this
Court to paragraphs-45 to 50 of the said order which read as
follows:
45. In Indore Development Authority
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has discussed the mode of taking
possession under the 1894 Act. In
paragraph 247, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that when the State
Government acquires land and
draws up a memorandum of taking
possession, that amounts to taking
the physical possession of the land.
In paragraph 262, after referring to
T. N. Housing Board Vs. A Viswam,
reported in (1996) 8 SCC 259, the
Court observed that it is settled law
by a series of judgments that one of
the accepted modes of taking
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
31/60
possession of the acquired land is a
recording of a memorandum or
panchanama by the LAO in the
presence of witnesses signed by
him/them that would constitute
taking possession of the land as it
would be impossible to take
physical possession of the acquired
land.
The Court also noted that it was
common knowledge that in some
cases the owner/interested person
may not cooperate in taking
possession of the land.
46. In paragraph 263, after referring
to Banda Development Authority vs.
Moti Lal Agarwal, reported in
(2011) 5 SCC 394, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that preparing a
panchanama is sufficient to take
possession. In paragraph 265,
referring to Balmokand Khatri
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
32/60
Educational & Industrial Trust Vs.
State of Punjab, reported in (1996) 4
SCC 212, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the normal mode of
taking possession in cases of
compulsory acquisition is by way of
drafting the panchanama in the
presence of panchas.
47. Finally, in paragraphs 274 and
279, the Court held that drawing of
panchanama of taking possession is
the mode of taking possession in
land acquisition cases thereupon the
land vests in the State and any re-
entry or retaining possession
thereafter is unlawful and does not
inure for conferring benefits under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
48. In the present case, admittedly,
no panchanama is available on the
record. The Affidavit on behalf of
the State Government does not even
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
33/60
state that any panchanama was
drawn in the presence of any
independent witnesses. The survey
record referred to a kabjepatti, but
when the Petitioners asked for
kabjepatti, if any, under the RTI
Act, they were informed by
communication dated 20 December
2014 that possession receipt or
kabjepatti was not available. Even
the Affidavit filed in this Petition
does not even refer to the
preparation of any kabjepatti or
even the existence of any kabjepatti.
Based on all this, the State
government has not discharged the
onus of establishing that it had
taken over the possession of the
said properties from the Petitioners.
49. There is only a bald statement
that the possession of the said
properties "was taken and vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
34/60
Mutation Entry No.906 dated
15.5.2001, the said land was
transferred in the name of the State
Government in the Revenue
records". There is no kabjepatti, and
there is no panchanama. The State's
version cannot be accepted based on
such a bald statement backed by no
credible evidence.
50. Though the State Government
specified nothing, the kabjepatti is
usually a unilateral receipt which
may or may not contain the
signature of a person from whom the
possession is taken. Therefore, a
panchanama is accepted as the
proper mode for taking over
possession. At times, the persons
interested do not cooperate. Hence,
the possession is taken by drawing a
panchanama witnessed and signed
by some respectable persons from
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
35/60
the locality. In this case, there is
neither any kabjepatti nor any
panchanama.
(emphasis added)
39. The submission is that there is no such document
to show that any panchnama was ever prepared in the presence
of any independent witnesses by the Land Acquisition Officer.
On the contrary, the Land Possession Certificate was issued to
the petitioner for the last five decades.
40. Learned counsel submits that it is ironical that the
school which came into existence fifty years ago is bereft of
toilets and they are now contemplating construction of toilet
one kilometer away from the land to be used by the girls
students. He concluded by submitting that the writ petition is fit
to be allowed and the order needs interference.
(C) THE CASE OF THE STATE RESPONDENTS:
41. The State respondents have filed their counter
affidavit and learned State counsel has relied on paragraphs 7 to
17 which read as follows:
7. That it is further important to
mention here that the writ
petitioner had preferred to file one
similar writ petition bearing
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
36/60
CWJC No. 5894/2017 which was
disposed of on dated 16.05.2025
with following observations: -
"... (i) the petitioner shall be
preferring a fresh application
along with all the connecting/
supporting documents/ Annexures
before the respondent no. 1, the
Principal Secretary, Department
of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Patna, Bihar within next two
wecks."
(ii) On the receipt of the said
petition with documents
supporting the case, the
respondent no. 1 shall be taking
up the matter and after noticing
all the necessary parties. and
hearing them/perusing the records
shall take the matter to its logical
conclusion preferably within a
period of three months from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
37/60
date, the petitioner files the fresh
petition..."
8. That in compliance to the said
order passed by Hon'ble High
Court, the Additional Chief
Secretary/Principal Chief
Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms, Patna, Bihar after
giving opportunity of personal
hearing to all the concerned
departments and officers and after
the perusal of records and reports
provided by all the concerned,
thereafter has passed a well
explained and reasoned speaking
order issued vide memo no-1733
dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure-P/14
of the writ) by which the
respondent has categorically
stated the reasons for not granting
the relief as prayed by the writ
petitioner in his writ petition and
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
38/60
representation. Since, the present
prayer of the writ petitioner is
almost same, therefore in view of
the reason mentioned in reasoned
order dated 29.10.2025, the
present prayer of the writ
petitioner has no merit and same
is fit to be dismissed.
9. That it is necessary to bring on
record some relevant material
facts before this Hon'ble Court for
the just decision of the case.
10. That it is humbly submitted
that in light of a proposal made by
the requisitioning officer for
acquisition of the land
admeasuring 2.32 Acres for
construction of Rajkiya Kanya
Madhya Vidyalay, Aurangabad, a
land acquisition proceeding vide
L.A Case No. 20/72-73 was
initiated under the provisions of
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
39/60
Land Acquisition Act wherein an
area of 0.75 Acre of land under
question bearing Khata No. 26,
Khesra No. 307 was also
acquired.
11. That thereafter in view of said
requisition, The Department of
Revenue (Acquisition Section)
published a declaration of
11.08.1973 under section 6 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in
official gazette declaring that the
land is required for public
purpose,
12. That it is humbly submitted
that after completing due process
of acquisition under the
provisions laid down under the LA
Aet, 1894, the land appertaining
Khata No. 13 and 26, Plot no. 300
and 307, total measuring area
2.32 Acres of Mauza Aurangabad,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
40/60
Thana No. 500 was acquired and
accordingly the award for the said
land was prepared/made under
section of the 11 of the Act, 1894
in the year
1976, which was challenged by
the Awardee and ultimately the
matter was sent to the competent
Court for its adjudication and
finally the award made by the then
Land Acquisition Officer was
confirmed on 04.02.1994 by the
said competent court, which has
already been admitted by the writ
petitioner in the present writ
application.
13. That as part of the
compensation payment process,
the amount was paid to two
amongst the three awardees.
However, due to a dispute
between the third awardee
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
41/60
Ramnaresh Singh (now deceased),
son of Niranjan Singh, and
Raghav Narayan Singh, son of
Dharmdev Narayan Singh, over
the concerned land in question,
the matter in dispute was referred
to the Special Land Acquisition
Court under Section 30 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as
amended in 1984), and the
awarded amount was deposited as
a Revenue Deposit in the treasury,
which was also informed to the
Awardee.
14. That it is humbly submitted
that after completion of
proceedings of acquisition under
the Act, 1894, the physical
possession over the acquired land
was delivered to the requisitioning
department on dated 5.09.1981.
15. That in view of the aforesaid
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
42/60
it is clear that in the case of L.A.
Case No. 20/72-73, the process of
land acquisition i.e. declaration of
award, payment of compensation
and delivery of possession, the
entire statutory processes had
been completed long back in
accordance with the provisions of
Land Acquisition Law.
16. That mainly on the basis of the
following points the demand for
return of land has been made by
the petitioner:
(1) lapse of the process of land
acquisition in the light of Section
24 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
2013,
(ii) the applicant has claimed that
he is in possession of the land in
question.
(iii) existence of Jamabandi and
issuance of revenue receipt in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
43/60
name of the applicant.
(iv) non-payment of compensation
amount to the applicant.
17. That it is relevant to mention
the extracts from the order dated
06.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of
SLP No. 9036-9038/2016 (Indore
Development Authority vs
Manohar Lal & Others) regarding
the grounds of lapse of land
acquisition process under Section
24 (2) of the Act, 2013:-
Para 342 says: ... It is very easy to
lay a claim that physical
possession was not taken, with
respect to open land. Yet, once
vesting takes place, possession is
presumed to be that of the owner,
ie, the State Government and land
has been transferred to the
beneficiaries, Corporations,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
44/60
Authorities, etc... for
developmental purposes and
third-party interests have
intervened. Such challenges
cannot be entertained at all under
the purview of Section 24(2) as it
is not what is remotely
contemplated in Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013.
para 363(3) says: The word 'or'
used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has
to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The
deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2)
of the Act of 2013 takes place
where due to inaction of
authorities for five years or more
prior to commencement of the
said Act, the possession of land
has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
45/60
other words, in case possession
has been taken, compensation has
not been paid then there is no
lapse. Similarly, If compensation
has been paid, possession has not
been taken then there is no lapse
рага 163(7) Once possession has
been taken there is no lapse under
Section 24(2)
para 363(9) It does not revive
stale and time-barred claims and
does not reopen concluded
proceedings nor allow
landowners to question the
legality of mode of taking
possession to reopen proceedings
or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury
instead of court to invalidate
acquisition."
(emphasis added)
42. Learned State counsel submits that the aforesaid
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
46/60
facts clearly show that the respondents have rightly rejected the
claim of the petitioner. Thus the writ petition be dismissed.
(D) REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE AVERMENTS OF THE
RESPONDENTS:
43. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) relied upon
by the respondents, clearly records in paragraph 363(3) that the
deemed lapse of the land acquisition proceeding under section
24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of the
authorities for five years or prior to commencement of the said
Act, the possession of the land has not been taken nor
compensation paid.
44. He submits that not only the repeated
representations followed by the writ petition preferred recorded
that they are in possession of the land, the respondents issued
the Land Possession Certificate regularly. Thus, in principle,
neither the possession was ever taken, formal document signed
nor payment of compensation made. In that background, the
respondents illegally rejected the claim. The writ petition thus is
fit to be allowed.
(E) FINDINGS:
45. This Court has heard the parties at length and have
perused the records. The fact that emerges is/are that:
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
47/60
(i) in the year 1972, the land
acquisition case no. 20 of 1972-73 was
initiated for the construction of
Government Girls Middle School in
the district of Aurangabad and 2.32
acres was/were proposed to be
acquired;
(ii) the 0.75 decimals of the land of the
petitioner was also part of the said
acquisition process;
(iii) so far as the land of the petitioner
is concerned, it remained litigated and
on 04.02.1994 order came from
competent Civil Court. Meanwhile, the
government went ahead and
constructed the school at a different
place at Dharnidhar Road which is one
kilometer away from the present land;
(iv) the petitioner agitated before the
respondents between the year 1994 to
2014 for:
a) the payment of compensation;
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
48/60
b) failure to do so, to release the land
from acquisition;
(v) on 16.07.2004, the Collector,
Aurangabad made recommendation to
‘the Department’ for the release of the
land;
(vi) on 31.07.2004, the Director, Land
Acquisition, directed the Collector,
Patna that the land can be returned
after an enquiry and getting an
undertaking from the land owner that
they will not claim any damages;
(vii) this followed the letter no. 93
dated 09.10.2006 by which it wanted
reply from the institutions of the district
whether the land is required for any
purpose or not;
(viii) however, nothing happened
thereafter;
(ix) the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.
5894 of 2017 (Sunil Kumar Singh vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors);
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
49/60
(x) this Court directed the State
respondents to take decision vide an
order date 16.05.2025.
(xi) the respondents rejected the claim
on 29.10.2025;
(x) aggrieved the present writ petition;
46. In C.W.J.C. No. 5894 of 2017 which was earlier
filed by the petitioner, disposed of on 16.05.2025, it was
recorded in paragraphs 4 to 11 as follows:
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that it
included a piece of his ancestral land recorded as
follows:
Khata No. 26, Khesra No. 307, Thana No. 560,
Aurangabad (Area-0.75 decimal).
It is the further case of the petitioner that the
land always remained in his peaceful physical
possession and the revenue receipts were also
continuously issued in his favour.
5. The contention is that 'the School',
however, came to be constructed at a different
place at Dharnidhar Road, Aurangabad and
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
50/60
the land in question remained unused,
6. The further stand of the petitioner is that the
letter no. 123 dated 12.01.1979 issued by the State of
Bihar, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar,
Patna records that if the acquired land remains unused,
the same can be returned to the land owners. The said
letter no. 123 dated 12.01.1979 read as follows:-
[i= la0 123 Mh0 ,y0 ,0 uhfr&1@78 fn0 12-1-1979]
[izs’kd& v:i dqekj clq] ljdkj ds fo”ks’k lfpo] lsok
esa] lHkh lekgrkZ@lHkh mik;qDrA
fo"k;%& Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 ds vUrxZr
vftZr Hkwfe dh vf/klwfpr iz;kstu ds fy,
vko”;drk u gksus ij okilhA
funs”kkuqlkj eq>s dguk gS fd gky ds dbZ ,d
,sls mnkgj.k ls ljdkj fpfUrr gks jgh gS fd tgka
vf/k;kph foHkkx ;k izkf/kdkjh o"kksZa igys dkQh tehu
fdlh fo”ks"k mn~ns”; ls Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 ds
vUrxZr] vf/kdka”kr% vkifRr izfdz;k ls vftZr djok
dj] vc mldh vko”;drk ugha gS dgrs gq, nwljs
izfr’Bku ;k foHkkx ds lkFk cUnkscLr djus ds fy,
ljdkj ls vuqjks/k dj jgs gSaA ,sls ekeyksa esa ljdkj dh
xgjh fpUrk dk fo”ks’k dkj.k eq[;r% ;g gS fd xjhc
fdlkuksa dh tehu dks] vtZu ds ckn] yEcs vjlksa rd
csdkj NksM+ j[kus ls fdlkuksa dh ijs”kkuh ds vykos
[kk|kUu ds mRiknu esa deh ls Hkkjh jk’Vªh; Nfr Hkh
gksrh gSA buds vfrfjDr] ljdkj vftZr Hkqfe ds bl
izdkj ds ysu&nsu dks uSfrd n`f’Vdks.k ls
leFkZu;ksX; ;k vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha le>rh gS] D;ksafd
fdlh fo”ks’k yksdfgr dk iz;kstu crkrs gq, fdlh
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
51/60
tehu dks vftZr dj] ckn esa mldk ml yksd iz;kstu
ds fy, mi;ksx ugha dj nwljs mn~ns”; ls cUnkscLr
djus dh ckr dks ljdkj lEc) Hkw&Lokfe;ksa dks /kks[kk
nsuk le>rh gSA ;g Li’Vr% xSj&dkuwuh dke Hkh gSA
okLro esa] ftl foHkkx ds fy, Hkwfe dk vtZu fd;k
tkrk gS] ml foHkkx dks] mldh vko”;drk ugha jgus
ij] ,slh tehu dks nwljs fdlh dks gLrkUrfjr djus] ;k
nwljs fdlh ds lkFk cUnkscLr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj
ugha gSA fu;e nwcFkZghu :i ls Li’V gS fd yksd
iz;kstu ds fo”ks’k mn~ns”; ls vftZr Hkwfe tc vf/k;kph
foHkkx dks] vko”;d ugha gS] rks ,slh tehu dks mUgsa
izR;kfir (relinquish) dj nsuk gS vkSj rnksijkUr ,slh
Hkwfe dk fu’iknu jktLo foHkkx }kjk gh fd;k tkuk gSA
2- jkT; ljdkj us ,sls ekeyksa dh c<+rh gqbZ
la[;k dks ns[krs gq, ;g uhfrxr fu.kZ; ysus dh d`ik
dh gS fd tc fdlh foHkkx dks fdlh yksd iz;kstu ds
fy, vftZr Hkwfe dh vko”;drk ugha jgsxh rks ,slh
vfrfjDr ¼ljIkyl½ Hkwfe dks og foHkkx jktLo foHkkx
dks vkSipkfjd :i ls okil dj nsxk] ,slh Hkwfe ds
uD”kk ,oa [ksljk uEcj vkfn lkjs fooj.k ds lkFkA
jktLo foHkkx lHkh ljdkjh foHkkx] ftuesa jkT; ljdkj
,oa dsUnzh; ljdkj nksuksa vkSj ljdkj ds fu;a=.kk/khu
yksd mn~;e ;k midze Hkh gksaxs] ,slh Hkwfe dh
vko”;drk ds ckjs esa iwN&rkN djus ds ckn] ;fn
fdlh dh vko”;drk ugha gks rks] Hkwfe dks HkwriwoZ
Hkw&Lokfe;ksa dks okil dj nsxkA bl chp HkwriwoZ
Hkw&Lokeh ds nsgkUr gksus ij tehu muds
mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks okil dj nh tk,xhA ,slh n”kk esa
okil dh tkus okyh tehu ds fy, ,sls jS;rksa ls mruh
jkf”k yh tk;sxh ftruh ml Hkwfe vtZu ds le; mUgsa
vf/kfu;e 1894 ds vUrxZr eqvkotk ds :i esa] Hkqxrku
fd;k x;k FkkA lkFk gh] ykSVk;h x;h tehu ij muds
iwoZ esa dk”rdkjh vf/kdkj ¼VsusUlh jkbV½ Fkk] ogh jgsxk
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
52/60
,oa Hkw&vtZu ds QyLo:i tks yxku dk U;wuhdj.k
fd;k x;k Fkk] og yxku fQj ls muds [kkrs esa tksM+
fn;k tk,xkA
3- vuqjks/k gS fd Hkfo’; esa fdlh Hkh foHkkx ;k
vf/k;kph izkf/kdkjh ds }kjk vfrfjDr vftZr Hkwfe okil
djus ds ekeyksa esa iwoZxkeh dafMdk esa fn, x,
funs”kkuqlkj vko”;d dkjZokbZ djus dh d`ik djsaA jkT;
ds bl uhfr laca/kh fu.kZ; ls vkids ftyk ds lHkh
foHkkx ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks d`i;k voxr djk;k tk;A
7. The contention as explained/submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel is that since they were in
continuous peaceful physical possession of the land in
question and the State of Bihar never took it back nor
they got/ received any compensation, the authorities were
regularly approached, persuant thereto, the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad vide his office
letter no. 76 dated 16.07.2004 addressed to 'the
Department' informed that the amount has not been
received by the original land holder and the
representation has been received by his son (the
petitioner herein). It has been further informed by the
Executive Engineer, Building Division, Aurangabad that
the land is not needed as 'the School' building has come
up at other place, the direction of Education Department
is not required in this connection for the release of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
53/60
land and in that background, steps can be taken for its
release under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act
(Annexure-8 to the writ petition).
8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite
the said positive communication by the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad and repeated
representations by the petitioner, the decision has still not
been taken by 'the Department'.
9. He submits that later, in the year 2006 also,
under the joint signature of the Collector, Aurangabad,
the Additional Collector, Aurangabad as well as District
Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad vide memo no.
93 dated 11.10.2006, a direction was given to put a notice
on the offices of the District Collectorate, Civil Court,
Zila Parishad, Nagar Parishad as also the Sub-
Divisional Office as to whether the land is required for
any other public purpose by either the State Government
Departments, Corporations or Central Government
Undertakings or not. (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)
10. He submits that even thereafter, no such
proposal came and in that background, it is clear that the
unutilized land which is still in the family's physical
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
54/60
possession, a decision is warranted from the side of the
respondents which they have failed to do till date.
11. In support of the claim of the petitioner, the
learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court to an order
of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another Vs.
Bimal Kumar Shah and Others reported in (2024) 10
SCC 533 with special reference to para 33.7. which reads
as follows:
33.7. The Right of Conclusion
33.7.1. Upon conclusion of process of
acquisition and payment of
compensation, the State takes
possession of the property in normal
circumstances. The culmination of an
acquistion process is not in the
payment of compensation, but also in
taking over the actual physical
possession of the land. If possession is
not taken, acquisition is not complete.
With the taking over of actual
possession after the normal
procedures of acquisition, the private
holding is divested and the right, title
and interest in the property, or its
beneficiary's right, title and interest in
the property is inconclusive and
causes lot of difficulties. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
55/60
obligation to conclude and complete
the process of acquisition is also part
of Article 300-A.
47. Following the disposal of CWJC No. 5894 of
2017, the petitioner preferred representation which came to be
rejected on 29.10.2025 and read as follows:
(i) as the land was acquired by the
Education Department, its opinion is/was
necessary;
(ii) accordingly, an opinion was sought
for from the Education Department
which opined vide information dated
20.09.2025 that it needs playground,
some classrooms and toilets for the girls
school;
(iii) the land cannot be released as
Education Department has shown need;
(iv) ‘the 2013 Act’ is not applicable in
the present case;
(v) accordingly, the representation was
rejected.
48. While rejecting the representation of the
petitioner, though the respondents took note of the letter no. 123
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
56/60
dated 12.01.1979 which talks about return of the land to the land
owner, if it is not required by any government agency, on the
ground that now they have come up with a proposal dated
20.09.2025, returning it as such may not be possible on this
ground.
49. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents
utterly failed to take note of the fact that:
(i) school stands constructed at a
different location;
(ii) physical possession of the land of
the petitioner was never taken and it remained in
his continuous physical possession;
(iii) the Collector, Aurangabad made
recommendation way back in the year 2004
(16.07.2004) for the release of the land;
(iv) the Director, Acquisition vide its
letter dated 31.07.2004 in principle gave nod
for release of the land with condition;
(v) the query made by Collector,
Aurangabad resulted into no response from the
government agencies so far as its use is
concerned;
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
57/60
(vi) meanwhile, Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (henceforth for short ‘the 2013 Act’) came
into existence wherein section 24(2) records that
where an award has been prepared and five
years or more has elapsed but physical
possession not taken nor payment/compensation
made, the proceeding shall deemed to have
lapsed and appropriate government if chooses
shall initiate proceeding of such acquisition
afresh in accordance with the provisions of ‘the
2013 Act’.
50. This Court has further taken note of the facts that:
(i) earlier writ petition was disposed of on
16.05.2025;
(ii) petitioner preferred representation on
28.05.2025;
(iii) as 'the Department' failed to act in three
months stipulated in the order, a contempt
petition was filed;
(iv) only thereafter, pursuant to query, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
58/60
proposal came from the Education Department
on 20.09.2025 about the need to construct
playground/classroom/toilets;
(v) the writ petition content shows that it is
more than one kilometer away from the girls
school, is in a densely populated area and the
travel time from the existing land to the school is
approximately fifteen minutes;
(vi) even then, if at all the government feels that
the land is needed, it will have to resort to
initiate proceeding under 'the 2013 Act'.
51. This Court has further taken note of the Hon’ble
Apex Court’s order passed in the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation (supra) wherein para no. 33.7 deals with the Right
of Conclusion wherein it has been recorded that the enumeration
of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation
but also in taking over the actual physical possession. If
possession is not taken, acquisition is not completed.
52. The admitted fact is that the petitioner was granted
Land Possession Certificate upto the year 2025. In that
background, if at all the respondents wanted the land in question
as lately, such stand has been taken, the only recourse is to
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
59/60
initiation of fresh proceedings under ‘the 2013 Act’ and not
otherwise.
53. So far as the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra) case cited by the respondent is/are concerned,
the Bombay High Court in Sakharamn Govinda Kadam (supra)
took note of the aforesaid order wherein it has been observed
that the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired
land is a recording of memorandum or panchnama by the Land
Acquisition Officer, in the presence of witnesses signed by
him/them that would constitute taking possession of the land.
54. However, the document that has been made part of
the record of the counter affidavit neither has the signature of
the Land Acquisition Officer nor any witness. It is actually
signed by the S.D.O., P.W.D. Thus, the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) cannot come to its rescue.
55. In that background, the order passed by the
respondent Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna and communicated vide
memo no. 1733 dated 29.10.2025 under the signature of
Director, Acquisition, Bihar stands quashed. The award relating
to the Land Acquisition Case No. 20 of 1972-73, so far as the
petitioner is concerned is declared to have lapsed in terms of
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
60/60
section 24(2) of ‘the 2013 Act’. The State government if so want
can initiate fresh proceedings for the acquisition of the land in
accordance with ‘the 2013 Act’ if it is really serious about
construction of the playground and toilets beside classrooms for
the girl students more than one kilometer away from existing
school.
56. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation. No cost.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 10.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…