Patna High Court

Surjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 10 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The acquisition proceedings have not lapsed and the petitioners are entitled to compensation at current market rates under the 2013 Act.

Summary

The petitioners purchased land and were in possession when BSF personnel stopped construction, claiming the land was under acquisition (Case No. 35/2022‑21) for a BSF Vahini Headquarters. They received no notice, possession was not taken, and no compensation was paid despite multiple representations. The petitioners sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed, compensation at current market rates, and full details of the proceedings, invoking Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, interpreting Section 24 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, and held that the acquisition has not lapsed because possession was never taken and compensation remains unpaid. Relying on the jurisprudence of Vidaya Devi and Dharnidhar Mishra on Article 300A, the Court directed the authorities to recalculate and pay compensation at the prevailing market rate. The writ petition was disposed with the order to pay compensation.

Issues considered

Whether the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation despite the absence of possession or notice.
Whether the actions of the authorities violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 300A
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 16, 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(2), 31, 34, 4
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 24, 31, 34

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
Article 300A
lapse of proceedings
Right to Fair Compensation Act
property rights
procedural due process

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2233 of 2026
======================================================
1. Surjeet Kumar S/o Late Ram Badan Singh, R/o A/3 Vivekanand Park Lane,
A.S.E Patliputra Colony, Boring Road, Dist.-Patna.
2. Ranjit Kumar, S/o Ramyash Rai, R/o A/3 Vivekanand park lane, A.S.E
Patliputra Colony, Boring Road, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms,
Bihar, Patna.
2. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
3. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
5. Circle Officer, Bikram, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Parth Gaurav, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Standing Counsel 10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER

2 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present

writ petition have sought, inter alia, the following relief(s),

which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“A. To hold that the Land Acquisition
proceeding with respect to the land in question bearing
Land Acquisition Case No. 35/2022-21 has since elapsed as
the possession still vests with the petitioners.
B. In alternative, direct the Respondent
authorities to grant compensation to the Petitioners for
their acquired land enumerated detailed at Paragraph 4 of
this application at the present market rate when possession
is being taken.
C. Directing the Respondent authorities to
provide the full details of Land Acquisition Proceedings
under which the lands of the Petitioners have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.2233 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/8

acquired.
D. Directing the Respondent Authorities to pay
Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation besides the compensation
for acquisition to each of the Petitioners as the Authorities
have acted arbitrarily, depriving the Petitioners of a fair
and transparent proceedings and by not providing any
information related to the said proceeding thus violating the
rights of Petitioners enshrined under Article 300 A of
Constitution of India.
E. Any other relief/reliefs for which the
petitioner deemed entitled for.”

3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioners, after

purchasing the land through registered sale deeds and obtaining

mutation in their favour, were in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the land and had also commenced construction

thereon, which was abruptly stopped by BSF personnel without

any written order on the ground that the land was under

acquisition; being unaware of any such acquisition and having

received neither notice nor compensation, the petitioners

approached the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, who

vide order dated 13.10.2023 informed that the land has been

acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 35 of 2022–21 for

construction of BSF Vahini Headquarters, allegedly pursuant to

a declaration published in Hindustan Newspaper dated

26.06.2020, and advised the petitioners to submit a fresh

representation for compensation. Accordingly, the petitioners

submitted multiple representations dated 30.09.2024,

09.12.2025, 18.12.2025, 30.12.2025, 20.01.2026 and finally
Patna High Court CWJC No.2233 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/8

21.01.2026 seeking information and payment of compensation,

highlighting that they continued to remain dispossessed in effect

for more than five years over a substantial area of land

measuring 199.156 decimals, despite boundary walls and a

residential structure standing thereon, but all such

representations were met with complete silence, compelling the

petitioners to approach this Court due to the arbitrary, and

unconstitutional action of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submitted that the action of the respondents in

depriving the petitioners of the use and enjoyment of their land

without serving any notice, without following due process of

law and without payment of just and fair compensation is ex

facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300A of the

Constitution of India, rendering the entire acquisition

proceedings vitiated in law, and therefore the petitioners are

entitled to appropriate reliefs including protection of their

property rights and payment of lawful compensation in

accordance with law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted

that no information has been given in the pleadings made in the

present writ petition, as to whether, the petitioners approached
Patna High Court CWJC No.2233 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
4/8

the Land Acquisition Officer, Patna with a prescribed format

and the petitioners before exercising their right straight away

filed the present writ petition, which is premature and fit to be

dismissed by this Court.

6. Heard the Parties.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made on

behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available

on record, it appears that the dispute essentially pertains to the

determination and payment of compensation under the relevant

land acquisition by the Government for BSF Vahini

Headquarters Project. The petitioners contend that the

compensation award is pending since 5 years, seeking payment

in terms of the applicable Government Resolution. The legal

position governing such issues is no longer res integra and

stands authoritatively settled by the Apex Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others,

reported in AIR 2020 SC 1496 which is reproduced hereinafter:

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case
the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered
by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall
continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013
Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
Patna High Court CWJC No.2233 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
5/8

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 2013 Act 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 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.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit
is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has
not been deposited with respect to majority of
landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section
4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case
the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34
of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of
land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more,
compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the
“landowners” as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or
non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to
pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section
31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to
be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section
24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894
Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession
has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for
land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as
on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders
passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2233 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
6/8

five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to
new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the
2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. 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.”

8. It is also to be taken note of that Article 300A of

the Constitution of India, which tends to safeguard the

invaluable right to property.

“300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property
save by authority of law
No person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law.”
9. The State cannot disposes a citizen of his

property except in accordance with law and procedure

prescribed. The obligation to pay compensation is not

expressively included in Article 300-A of the Constitution of

India can be inferred in that Article. The law in this regard is

well settled by the Apex Court in case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020(2) SCC

569, I find it proper to quote Para-12.1 and 12.2 of the said

judgment, which are inter alia reproduced hereinafter;

“12.1. The appellant was forcibly expropriated of her
property in 1967, when the right to property was a
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of
the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to
private property [State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose,
(1953) 2 SCC 688 , which could not be deprived without
due process of law and upon just and fair compensation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2233 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
7/8

12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental
right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act,
1978, however, it continued to be a human right
[Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 in a
welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article
300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no
person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of
his property except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. The obligation to pay compensation,
though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be
inferred in that Article. [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State
of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1”

10. The above proposition of law has again been

reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar Mishra

(D) and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others, in Civil Appeal

No. 6351 of 2024, reported in (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases

605, is relevant. The paragraph is reproduced as under:–

“ 16. The right to property ceased to be a
fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human
right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under
Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides
that no person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his
property except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. The obligation to pay compensation,
though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be
inferred in that Article. [See: K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1.”

11. In such circumstances, when the question of right

to property as per the provision of Article 300 A of the

Constitution of India comes to the knowledge of this Court and

also in view of the recorded evidence and the established MVR

of the area, in which vicinity, petitioners’ land has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.2233 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
8/8

acquired, this Court has no alternative than to direct the

concerned authority to give due regard to the same and

recalculate the amount of compensation at the current rate of

MVR so that the petitioners should not be made to suffer

financially in any manner. The claim of the petitioners is

supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal & Ors.,

reported in AIR 2020 SC 1496 and the amendment brought in

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in the

year 2018. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners have

not received the amount of compensation till date.

12. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

mantreshwar/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Parth Gaurav