Patna High Court
Sidheshwar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to either just compensation or restoration of the vacant land, and the District Land Acquisition Officer must decide the matter within six weeks.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of a registered ancestral land in Patna, claimed ownership of a 64‑decimal plot and alleged that the Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation had encroached on it for a proposed park without any notice or acquisition process. They filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to restrain construction, a declaration that the land is private, compensation at market rates, and restoration of possession. The court noted that the petitioners possessed a valid land possession certificate and that the respondents had acted without following the procedure established by law under Article 300A of the Constitution. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Vidaya Devi, Dharnidhar Mishra, etc.), the court held that the State cannot dispossess a person’s property without authority of law and that compensation is implied. Accordingly, the court directed the District Land Acquisition Officer to summon the Circle Officer, examine the revenue records and within six weeks either award just compensation or return the vacant land to the petitioners. The writ petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents can encroach upon the petitioners' private ancestral land without following the legal land acquisition process.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to just and fair compensation under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain the respondents from further construction on the disputed land.
- Whether the status quo must be maintained pending fresh scientific mapping and demarcation of the land.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21, Article 300A
Subjects
- property rights
- land acquisition
- compensation
- mandamus
- Article 300A
- encroachment
- public project
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2268 of 2026
======================================================
1. Sidheshwar Singh s/o Late Sohan Lal, R/o House No. 9, Dujra Devi Sthan,
S.B.I. Front Lane, Durja, P.S.- Buddha Colony, District- Patna.
2. Msmt. Anita Kumari, W/o Late Anant Kumar, S/o Late Sohan Lal, R/o
House No. 9, Mukhiyaji Ki Gali, Durja, P.S.- Buddha Colony, District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
4. The Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation through its
Managing Director having office at West Boring Canal Road, North
Anandpuri, Buddha Colony, District- Patna.
5. The Project Director, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporationh,
West Boring Canal Road, North Anandpuri, Buddha Colony, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sudarshan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs.Kumari Anita, GP 3
Mr.Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard Mr. Sudarshan Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. Kumari Anita,
learned GP 3 along with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned AC to GP 3
for the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2268 of 2026 dt.12-02-2026
2/6
“a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing and commanding the
Respondent authorities to forthwith restrain from
carrying out any construction or project activity on
the private land of the Petitioners situated at Khata
No. 65, Khesra No. 50, Area 64 Decimal, Circle
Patna Sadar, Mouja - Durja, District- Patna after
conducting a Fresh Scientific Mapping and
Demarcation.
b) Further for declaration and holding
that the land bearing Khata No. 65, Khesra No. 50,
Area 64 Decimal, Circle - Patna Sadar Mouja-
Durja, District- Patna is private, ancestral property
of the Petitioners and not a Government land, and
therefore, the Respondent authorities have no right,
title, or interest to encroach upon or occupy the
said land without initiating valid land acquisition
proceedings and providing due compensation as
prescribed by the law.
c) For a direction to the Respondents to
strictly ensure that no encroachment is made on the
private holding of the Petitioners and in the event
the land is required for a public project, the
Respondents must either provide Alternative
Settlement/Land or pay Just and Fair
Compensation at current commercial market rates
to the Petitioners.
d) To direct the Respondent District
Magistrate and Circle Officer, to immediately act
upon the pending application for mapping and
demarcation to protect the Petitioners' property
from state-sponsored encroachment.
e) Further for a direction to the
Respondent authorities to maintain status quo
during pendency of this application and not to start
the construct work anymore and further to restore
the peaceful possession of the said land to the
Petitioners in the same condition as it existed prior
to the initiation of the project over the said land.
f) Also for a direction to the Respondent
State to pay adequate and exemplary compensation
to the Petitioner for the illegal deprivation of
property in violation of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India and the mental agony,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2268 of 2026 dt.12-02-2026
3/6
harassment, sufferings undergone by the Petitioner
and also for violation of personal liberty (Article
21).
g) For grant of any other relief or relief
to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts
and circumstances of this case.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners
are the lawful owners of the land bearing Khata No. 65, Khesra
No. 50, measuring total 64 decimals, situated at Mauza No. 4
(Dujra), Circle-Patna Sadar, District-Patna and they have
peaceful possession over the same. The petitioners are grandson
of Late Ramdhyan Gope and their said grandfather had come in
possession on the basis of a registered Kewala dated
19.02.1930. After the demise of Late Ramdhyan Gope, the
petitioners’ father, namely, Late Sohan Lal got the land mutated
in his name vide order dated 22.02.2011, resulting in creation of
Jamabandi No. 310 and the rent was fixed, which the petitioners
are continuously making payment to the State. After the death of
the petitioners’ father on 07.03.2018, the petitioners, being his
legal heirs, succeeded the property and continued to remain in
possession thereof. The Land Possession Certificate has also
been issued by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar.
4. It is alleged that in December 2025, the
Respondent–Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited, under the pretext of a proposed project,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2268 of 2026 dt.12-02-2026
4/6
namely J.P. Memorial Park, allegedly encroached the
petitioners’ private land by erecting pillars and filled the sand
without issuing any notice in accordance with law. No approval
has been sanctioned for the acquisition of the said land
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners submitted a
representation dated 11.12.2025 before the Managing Director
and Project Officer of the Respondent Corporation seeking fresh
scientific mapping and demarcation of the land and also filed an
application before the Circle Office, Patna Sadar on 06.01.2026
along with requisite government fee for the same but when no
action has been taken till date, as a result, the petitioners has
been forced to file the present writ petition.
6. Considering the nature of reliefs as prayed for
in the present writ petition that the petitioners being aggrieved
had filed an application before the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Patna, who without considering the documents, which
confers undisputed title over the piece of land, acquired the land
in question for development of J.P.Memorial Park even without
following due process of law and in accordance with the
mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners become entitled for due compensation or return of
their land. Law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.2268 of 2026 dt.12-02-2026
5/6
in case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh &
Ors. reported in 2020(2) SCC 569, I find it proper to quote the
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.
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”
7. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2268 of 2026 dt.12-02-2026
6/6
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.”
8. The District Land Acquisition Officer is directed to
call for the revenue records from the concerned Circle Office by
summoning the Circle Officer to appear before him so that the
claim of the petitioners can be decided for payment of due
compensation in accordance with law well within a period of six
weeks from the date of communication of this order by passing
a reasoned order in accordance with law or in alternative, the
petitioners are entitled for the return of vacant land in question.
9. With the above observation/direction, the
present writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.