Patna High Court
Uday KumarversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to approach the District Collector with supporting documents for a decision on the land dispute.
Summary
Uday Kumar filed a writ petition seeking an injunction against the Eastern Railway and various government officials to stop construction on land he claims as his Raiyti/Purchase land and to compel acquisition and compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner also asked for protection of his peaceful possession. The Court, after hearing, referred to a similar recent decision in Goda Devi @ Savitri Devi (CWJC No.1246 of 2026) and noted that the parties, including the Railways and the State, raised no objection to the petitioner approaching the District Collector with complete documents. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh application before the Collector within four weeks, who will hear both sides and decide based on the development on the land. No substantive ruling on the merits of the land claim or compensation was made.
Issues considered
- Whether the Eastern Railway can construct over the petitioner's Raiyti/Purchase land without acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether a writ of injunction can be issued to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession.
- Whether the petitioner must first approach the District Collector for land acquisition and compensation before seeking judicial relief.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- injunction
- land acquisition
- Railway construction
- Raiyti land
- compensation
- possession
- Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2095 of 2026
======================================================
Uday Kumar Son of Late Lakhan Lal Saw, Resident of Village- Piribazar,
P.S.- Piribazar, Block- Suryagarha, District-Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.
2. The D.R.M. Eastern Railway, D.R.M. Office, Malda, West Bengal
3. The State of Bihar Through, Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai Sadar, District- Lakhisarai.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai.
7. The Circle Officer, Suryagarha Anchal, District- Lakhisarai.
8. The S.H.O., Piri Bazar, Police Station- Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayank Bilochan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Solicitor General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) for issuance of an appropriate
writ commanding the respondents not to
construct the Railways under Pass, over the
land of petitioner which is Raiyti/Purchase land
of the petitioner.
(ii) for issuance of an appropriate
writ restraining the respondents not to make any
interference in the peaceful possession of the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2095 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
(iii) for issuance of an appropriate
writ commanding the respondent to first
acquired the land under the provision of land
acquisition act and pay the compensation or
vacate the land of the petitioner.
(iv) for any other relief or reliefs for
which petitioner is entitled.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this
Court to a similar matter in the case of Goda Devi @ Savitri
Devi (CWJC No. 1246 of 2026) disposed of on 29.01.2026 with
reference to paragraph 3 to 6 which read as follows:
3. The petitioner has come with a
simple prayer to at least take note of the
representation that has been preferred before
the different respondents including the Railway
Authorities/District Magistrate-cum- Collector,
Lakhisarai (Annexure- P/2 and P/3
respectively).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that it will suffice if the Collector,
Lakhisarai looks into the matter and take a
decision after hearing both the petitioner as
also railways.
5. The parties including the State and
the Railways have no objection.
6. In that background, the writ
petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to
approach afresh with all the supporting
documents before the Collector, Lakhisarai in
next four weeks who shall be noticing the other
Patna High Court CWJC No.2095 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
side including the railways (whose counsel is
already present in the Court) and after hearing
the parties, shall be disposing of the matter at
an earliest taking into account the development
that has taken place on the land claimed by the
petitioner.
4. The Railways and the State have no objection.
5. In that background, the writ petition is also
disposed of in the light of Goda Devi @ Savitri Devi (supra)
directing the petitioner to approach afresh with all the
supporting documents before the Collector, Lakhisarai
(respondent no. 4) in next four weeks who shall be noticing the
other side including the railways and after hearing the parties,
shall be disposing of the matter at an earliest taking into account
the development that has taken place on the land claimed by the
petitioner.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…