Patna High Court
Umashankar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must approach the Collector with all relevant documents, and the writ petition is disposed without granting the reliefs sought.
Summary
The petitioner, Umashankar Ray, filed a writ petition seeking mandatory directions for the release of compensation for his land acquired for a double‑decker flyover, payment of statutory interest, a fresh joint measurement, and a stay of further acquisition, alleging arbitrary administrative delay and violation of Articles 14 and 300A. The State counsel indicated that the petitioner was summoned to appear before the District Land Acquisition Officer but no proof of his appearance exists, and the petitioner later made a representation to the Collector. The Court noted that two other names appear in the petition but are not parties, and directed the petitioner to present his case with all documents before the Collector within eight weeks, after which the Collector should notify all parties and decide the matter. The Court further observed that the compensation granted to a similarly situated landowner, Chatti Lal Sharma, should be considered. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with the observation that the matter be pursued before the Collector.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether delay in payment of compensation attracts statutory interest under Section 80 of the Act.
- Whether the administrative silence and delay violate Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution.
- Whether a mandamus directing release of compensation, fresh measurement, and stay of acquisition is appropriate.
- Whether the compensation awarded to similarly situated landowners is determinative.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- statutory interest
- mandamus
- administrative delay
- constitutional law
- Article 14
- Article 300A
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2287 of 2026
======================================================
Umashankar Ray Son of Late Ram Nagina Ray, Resident of Bradahiya, P.O.-
Bardahiya, Marhaurha District- Saran (Bihar) PIN- 841419.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saran at Chapra.
4. The Circle Officer, Chapra Sadar, District Saran.
5. The Executive Engineer / Project Director, Double Decker Flyover Project,
Chapra, under the Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kunal Raushan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (07)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Nath, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Rashmi Ranjan for the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“i. For issuance of appropriate
writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to release land
acquisition compensation in favour of the
petitioner for acquisition of his land for the Double
Decker Flyover Project, situated in Chapra, at par
with similarly situated raiyats who have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.2287 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/5
compensated like under Award No. 33;
ii. For issuance of appropriate
writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to pay statutory interest
on the delayed compensation in terms of Section 80
of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013, at the rate of 9% per
annum for the first year and 15% per annum
thereafter, calculated from the date on which
compensation was released to similarly situated
raiyats, till actual payment;
iii. For issuance of appropriate
writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to conduct a fresh joint
measurement of the petitioner's land with due
notice to the petitioner, supply the measurement
report and alignment map, and thereafter pass a
reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's
claim within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble
Court;
iv. For issuance of appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.2287 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/5
writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus
and to adjudicate the matter pending before the
concerned authorities in a time bound manner and
to declare that the prolonged administrative silence
and failure to take a decision on the petitioner's
claim for compensation, despite repeated
verification and representations, is arbitrary,
illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the
Constitution of India;
v. For issuance of appropriate
writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus to
direct the respondents not to proceed further in
respect of acquisition of the petitioner's land till the
time the matter is pending before this Hon'ble
Court for its disposal.
vi. Grant any other relief(s), including
costs, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.”
3. The matter relates to a piece of land having
following details:
“Khata No. 75, Plot Nos. 83 and 66 (area
0.7252 decimal in the Circle – Sadar
Patna High Court CWJC No.2287 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
4/5
Chapra in the district of Saran at Chapra.”
4. The petitioner claims to own the land by way of
purchase in the year 2004 and has also annexed rent receipt to
this effect of the year 2023. The submission is that for the
construction of the Double Decker road in the Township of
Chapra, the land of the petitioner was acquired but no
compensation paid despite filing of the representation before the
authorities concerned.
5. Learned State counsel points out that vide memo
no. 1557 dated 16.12.2023, the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Saran at Chapra had asked the petitioner amongst other
to appear alongwith the documents to present his case. The
submission is that he was again asked to appear on 27.01.2025
(Annexure P/7) but there is no documentary proof to show that
the petitioner appeared and presented his case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
subsequently, in the month of June 2025, he made a
representation before the Collector, Saran at Chapra.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties and
taking into account that in the petition/annexure, two names
have cropped up, one of Sona Devi and other of Chatti Lal
Sharma, none of whom have been made as party-respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.2287 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
5/5
before this Court, in the aforesaid background, in the opinion of
the Court, it would be appropriate that for the ends of justice, the
petitioner present his case alongwith all the relevant documents
before the Collector, Saran at Chapra (respondent no. 2) in the
next eight weeks.
8. If such petition is preferred, the Collector, Saran at
Chapra shall notice all the concerned parties and after hearing
them, shall be taking the matter to its logical conclusion at an
earliest.
9. The contention of the petitioner is that similar
situate Chatti Lal Sharma has been granted compensation should
also be looked into before passing the reasoned order.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…