Patna High Court

Rajkumar Sinha @ Rajkumar PrasadversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation calculated at the revised MVR rate multiplied by the government‑approved factor, and that the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed; therefore the Land Acquisition Officer must pay the stipulated amount and assist the petitioners in completing the required formalities.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of landowners from Shankarpur Jhama, claimed that the compensation awarded for their lands acquired for the Salepur‑to‑Rajgir road was undervalued because the Minimum Value Register (MVR) had not been revised since 2023 and a statutory multiplier of two should apply. They sought a compensation rate of Rs 30,000 per decimal or, alternatively, the rate derived from the revised MVR of Rs 65,000 multiplied by the government‑approved multiplier, amounting to Rs 260,000 per decimal. The State argued that the petition was premature and not filed in the prescribed format. The Court examined the applicable provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, and the Bihar Agriculture Land (Conversion for Non‑Agriculture Purposes) Act, 2010, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal* (AIR 2020 SC 1496). It held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation calculated on the revised MVR with the multiplier and that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed. Consequently, the Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to provide the necessary forms and pay the compensation as per the government resolution, while allowing the petitioners to pursue land‑conversion remedies separately. The petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation based on the revised Minimum Value Register and the statutory multiplier under the 2013 Act.
Whether the petition is premature and dismissible for not following the prescribed format for representation before the Land Acquisition Officer.
Whether non‑payment of compensation results in a deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Whether the petitioners must first obtain conversion of their agricultural land under the Bihar Agriculture Land (Conversion for Non‑Agriculture Purposes) Act, 2010 before receiving compensation.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
Minimum Value Register
multiplier
section 24 lapse
conversion of agricultural land
government resolution
premature petition

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2262 of 2026
======================================================
1. Rajkumar Sinha @ Rajkumar Prasad S/o - Late Munshi Mahto, Resident of
village- Shankarpur Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District-
Nalanda.
2. Subodh Kumar, S/o Sri Rambilash Prasad, Resident of village- Shankarpur
Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
3. Shivratan Singh, S/o- Late Janki Prasad, Resident of village- Shankarpur
Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
4. Chandeshwar Prasad S/o Late Hiraman Mahto, Resident of village-
Shankarpur Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
5. Chameli Kumari, W/o Late- Shivshankar Singh, Resident of village-
Shankarpur Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
6. Mithlesh Kumar, S/o Madho Prasad, Resident of village- Shankarpur Jhama,
P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
7. Ramchandra Prasad, S/o- Late Badri Prasad, Resident of village- Shankarpur
Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
8. Rambilash Prasad, S/o - Late Badri Prasad, Resident of village- Shankarpur
Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
9. Kailash Prasad, S/o- Late Tulsi Mahto, Resident of village- Shankarpur
Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
10. Kamal Nayan Prasad, S/o- Late Yadunandan Prasad, Resident of village-
Shankarpur Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
11. Bhagwat Prasad, S/o Late Ramkeshwar Prasad, Resident of village-
Shankarpur Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
12. Bharat Prasad Sinha, S/o Late Murat Prasad, Resident of village- Shankarpur
Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
13. Dharambir Kumar, S/o - Sri Ramchandra Prasad, Resident of village-
Shankarpur Jhama, P.O. - Daruara, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
14. Umashankar Paswan, S/o Late Mahadev Paswan, Resident of village-Saidi,
P.O. and P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
15. Lakhandev Paswan, S/o Late Mahadev Prasad, Resident of village-Saidi,
P.O. and P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
16. Ram Naresh Prasad, S/o Late Ram Prasad Mahto, Resident of village-
Jalalpur, P.O. and P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
17. Shatrughan Prasad, S/o Late Ram Nandan Ram, Resident of village-
Jalalpur, P.O. and P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and
Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar.
2. The Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2262 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/9

3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
4. Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Manglas Road, Patna - 1,
through its Managing Director.
5. The Circle Officer, Noorsarai Circle, District- Nalanda.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER

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

petitioners; Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

respondent/s. However, no one appears on behalf of 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:-

“1. That the petitioners have filed
this writ petition for direction/directions,
writ/writs to the respondents authorities to give
adequate and proper compensation to the
petitioners or the land acquired for construction
of Salepur to Rajgir (Bodh Circuit Path)
Noorsarai Ahiyapur Silao NH-82 road at the
rate of Rs. 30,000/- per decimal as the nature of
the land of the petitioners at present changed
from dhanhar to residential/ commercial as
stated in Paragraph 5 of this writ petition.
AND/OR
Pass such other order/orders as
your lordship may deem fit and proper”

3. Brief Facts of the case is that the State of Bihar has

undertaken the construction of Salepur to Rajgir (Bodh Circuit

Path) via Noorsarai–Ahiyapur–Silao NH-82 and for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2262 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/9

construction of the said road, several plots of land belonging to

the petitioners situated at Mauza–Jhama, Thana No. 60, P.S.–

Noorsarai, District–Nalanda have been acquired by the State

authorities. The Collector, Nalanda issued notices to the

petitioners in Land Acquisition Case No. 24 of 2025-26,

assigning different award numbers and determining

compensation amounts for their respective lands. The petitioners

are the owners and are in possession of their respective lands,

which is duly supported by separate land rent receipts and other

title documents. As per the Resolution of the State of Bihar, a

multiplier of 2 is applicable for lands situated within a 10-

kilometre area. The petitioners’ lands fall within the said 10-

kilometre radius and are therefore entitled to compensation

calculated by applying the multiplier of 2. Similarly situated

land at Mauza–Shankarpur Jhama, P.S.–Noorsarai, District–

Nalanda, Survey Plot No. 490 under Khata No. 14, measuring

3.25 decimals, was sold by Soniya Devi to Lila Devi vide sale

deed dated 10.06.2022 for Rs. 65,000/-, i.e., at the rate of Rs.

20,312/- per decimal in the year 2022, which reflects the

prevailing market value of the land in the locality. The

Minimum Value Register (MVR) is due for revision after 10

years as per rules. The MVR ought to have been revised in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2262 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
4/9

year 2023, but the same has not been properly revised, resulting

in undervaluation of the acquired land.The petitioners submitted

a representation dated 03.10.2025 before the Collector, Nalanda

and the Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda, seeking payment of

adequate and lawful compensation.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners

submitted that in spite of the award in respect of the petitioners

has been prepared in connection with Land Acquisition Case

No.24 of 2025-26 the petitioners have not been paid due

compensation till date.

5. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners are

entitled for the compensation at the current Minimum Value

placing reliance on the resolution no. 1143 dated 23.10.2018

(Annexure – P/3) which has been issued by the State

Government under the authority of the Governor of Bihar,

which prescribes for the calculation of the value of the land in

respect of those lands which are situated in the peripheral area

of either in Municipal Corporation and Nagar Panchayat in

accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as well as, in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2262 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
5/9

light of the said resolution. The petitioners in this regard has

brought the Minimum Value Register (MVR) of the land which

is adjoining to the petitioners land and that is Rs.65000, Area

3.25 dismil in respect of Plot no.490, Khata No.14, in respect of

Khata No. 09,10,11 etc.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner

submitted that as per the multiplier Minimum Value Register

(MVR) should be revised after ten years which should have

been revised in the year 2023 in respect of the petitioners in

connection with Land Acquisition Case No.24 of 2025-26.

7. Per contra, Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, learned

counsel for the Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation

submitted that no information has been given in the pleadings

made in the present writ petition, as to whether, the petitioners

approached the Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda with a

prescribed format and a common application has been made on

03.10.2025 by all the writ petitioners which is not in the

prescribed format. The petitioners before exercising their right

straight away filed the present writ petition, which is premature

and fit to be dismissed by this Court.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made on

behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the records I
Patna High Court CWJC No.2262 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
6/9

find that in respect of land as prescribed in para 3 relating to the

petitioners and the copies of awards in case of individual

petitioners (Annexure-1 series) the petitioners have claimed that

they have not received the award which has been prepared at

less amount and as such they refused to receive the reward and

they made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer

for making payment of award at the rate of

Rs.65000X4=260000 per dismil as per the Government

Resolution No.1143 dated 23.10.2008. Law in this regard is well

settled by the Apex Court in case of Indore Development

Authority vs Manoharlal And Ors. 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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2262 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
7/9

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
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.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.2262 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
8/9

9. At the same time I find that the petitioners have not

availed remedy as per Section 4 of the Bihar Agriculture Land

(Conversion for Non-Agriculture Purposes) Act, 2010 and the

petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh representation before the

concerned authority in accordance with the Act and get their

land converted into commercial or residential land as per the

physical verification of the land and make payment of the

required conversion fee. However, the provision of the Bihar

Agriculture Land (Conversion for Non-Agriculture Purposes)

Act, 2010 will not come in the way of the Land Acquisition

Officer concerned and District Magistrate concerned in making

payment of the amount of compensation. The Minimum Value

Government prescribes the rate and considering the Government

Resolution No.1143 dated 23.10.2008, the Land Acquisition

Officer is directed to provide all the requisite forms to the

petitioners and if the petitioners request the Land Acquisition

Officer then in that case the Land Acquisition Officer must

provide all the help to the petitioners in filing the form and

making payment of the compensation to the petitioners to which

they are entitled.

10. Accordingly, the present application stands
Patna High Court CWJC No.2262 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
9/9

disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…