Patna High Court
Ram Vivek Singh and AnrversusThe Union Of India and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The order of the LARRA dismissing the petition on technical grounds is quashed as the authority should have decided the matter on merit.
Summary
The petitioners, Ram Vivek Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh, sought compensation for land acquired for the Indo‑Nepal Border road in Madhubani district. They alleged that the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) dismissed their application filed under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on a technical ground, without considering the merits. The petitioners argued that a subsequent petition filed on 30‑12‑2017, together with a limitation condonation petition, should have been decided on merit. The respondents contended that no petition invoking Section 64 had been filed before the Collector. The High Court held that the LARRA erred in dismissing the petition on technicalities and should have examined the case on its merits. Consequently, the Court quashed the LARRA order dated 24‑08‑2018 and directed the petitioners to approach the LARRA for a merit‑based decision. The writ petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the LARRA erred in dismissing the petition filed under Section 64 of the 2013 Act on technical grounds.
- Whether the petition should have been decided on merit despite procedural deficiencies.
- Whether the order dated 24‑08‑2018 passed by the LARRA is liable to be quashed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- Section 64
- writ of certiorari
- LARRA
- technical dismissal
- limitation condonation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23441 of 2018
======================================================
1. Ram Vivek Singh S/o Late Shivdhar Singh @ Sridhar Singh Resident of
Village- Basuki Bihari, Post- Basuki Bihari, P.S.- Madhwapur, District-
Madhubani
2. Ajay Kumar Singh S/o Sri Ram Vivek Singh Resident of Village- Basuki
Bihari, Post- Basuki Bihari, P.S.- Madhwapur, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India through the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, New Delhi
2. The Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, New Secretariat, Govt. of
Bihar.
3. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Madhubani
4. The Competent Authority cum District Land Acquisition Officer, (the
designated Collector) Madhubani
5. The Additional Collector-cum-Enquiry Officer, Madhubani
6. The Circle Officer Madhwapur, District- Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Advocate
Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Ishique Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12
For the NHAI : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 13-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for
the petitioners duly assisted by Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Mrs.
Nutan Sahay, learned AC to AAG-12 and Mr. Sanat Kumar
Mishra representing the NHAI.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
Patna High Court CWJC No.23441 of 2018(3) dt.13-01-2026
2/5
“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.08.18
passed by the presiding officer of Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Tribunal
Darbhanga hereinafter called as LARRA (DBG) in
Misc. Case No. 17/17-18 by which he has
dismissed he said Misc. Case as filed by petitioner
u/s 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
command the authority under the act to fix the
compensation of the land of petitioners as per the
prevalent residential value in the area and pay the
same as per the petitioners forthwith.
(iii) For any other writ/writs,
order/orders for which petitioners deemed entitled
to.”
3. The matter relates to lands situated in Mauja Basuki
Bihari, Thana No. 61 in Madhwapur Circle in the District of
Madhubani.
4. Pursuant to the Land Acquisition Proceeding Case
Patna High Court CWJC No.23441 of 2018(3) dt.13-01-2026
3/5
No. 01 of 2015-16 relating to construction of Indo-Nepal Border
road (Parsa to Akharaghat), the lands in question was/were
acquired.
5. The contention of the petitioner is/are as follows:
“(i) on 25.01.2017, they moved before the
Collector so that the matter is referred to the Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority
(for brevity ‘the LARRA’) (annexure-5 to the petition);
(ii) the submission is that though the exact
word/act was not incorporated, the same was not referred
and in that background, he directly moved before the
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority on 20.03.2017 (annexure-9 to the petition);
(iii) further, to safeguard his interest and to
avoid the technicalities which may cause prejudice to
him, another petition was preferred before the Collector,
Madhubani on 30.12.2017 (annexure-11 to the petition).”
6. The contention is that ‘the LARRA’ in Misc. Case
No. 17 of 2017-18 vide an order dated 24.08.2018 taking into
account the fact that the application submitted by the petitioner
on 25.01.2017 before the Collector had no prayer for its
reference to ‘the LARRA’ though on 30.12.2017 it filed another
Patna High Court CWJC No.23441 of 2018(3) dt.13-01-2026
4/5
petition before the Collector, Madhubani alongwith the
limitation petition for condoning the delay and as the same was
filed during the pendency of the Misc. Case No. 17 of 2017-18
that was being dealt by ‘the LARRA’, it was dismissed
(Annexure-1 to the petition).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ‘the
LARRA’ considered the earlier petition dated 25.08.2017 as also
the second petition before the Collector dated 30.12.2017 which
was filed alongwith limitation petition ought to have passed an
order on merit instead of dismissing it on technical ground.
8. A counter-affidavit has come on behalf of the State-
respondent nos. 3 to 6 and according to it, the petitioner did not
filed any petition before the Collector for reference under
Section 64 of the Act.
9. This Court is of the opinion that when ‘the LARRA’
had taken up the matter for consideration and also
acknowledges that realizing the mistake, the petitioner preferred
another petition on 30.12.2017 alongwith limitation petition, it
ought to have taken a wider look and decide the matter on merit
instead of dismissing it on technical ground.
10. On this ground alone, this Court is of the opinion
that the order has to go.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23441 of 2018(3) dt.13-01-2026
5/5
11. The order dated 24.08.2018 passed in Misc. Case
No. 17/2017-18 passed by ‘the LARRA’ (annexure-1) stands
quashed.
12. The petitioners alongwith the copy of the order
shall be approaching ‘the LARRA’ in next four weeks which
shall be taking up the matter and the same has to be decided in
accordance with law on merit.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…