Patna High Court
Rakesh Roshan Choudhary and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, with the court holding that the appropriate remedy lies before the land‑acquisition authority and no mandamus is warranted.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of landowners from Gandaul village in Saharsa, filed a writ petition in 2018 seeking compensation for land acquired for a link road and RCC bridge, alleging that the land was wrongly classified as agricultural (Dhanber‑2/Veeth‑2) instead of residential and that they had not received market‑value compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State of Bihar and various land‑acquisition officials were respondents. After a seven‑year delay, the court directed the respondents to file a counter‑affidavit, which was not filed, and noted that the petitioners had been individually served notice but had not pursued their claim before the appropriate authority. The court observed that any grievance regarding the award or its enhancement must be addressed to the designated land‑acquisition authority, not through a writ of mandamus. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with the court directing the petitioners to approach the proper authority for relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the release of compensation and re‑classification of land under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
- Whether the petitioners' remedy lies before the land‑acquisition authority despite the delay in filing the writ.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- classification of land
- mandamus
- RFCTLARR Act 2013
- writ petition
- procedural delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25104 of 2018
======================================================
1. Rakesh Roshan Choudhary and Ors late chandra mohan choudhary
2. Shyam shundre choudhary s/o hulo choudhary
3. Buchan choudhary s/o Jay narasyan choudhary
4. Sanjay kumar choudharyu s/o late laxman choudhary all resident of village-
gandual, p.o.- baghwa, p.s.- jalai, block- mahisi, district- saharsa, pin-
852216
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Director, land acquisition, directorate of dept. of revenue and land
reforms bihar patna.
3. That District magistrate/ collector saharsa.
4. The Additional collector, saharsa
5. The District Land Acquisition officer, saharsa
6. The Circle officer, block- mahishi, district- saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan- Sc25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 03-02-2026 In this writ petition, 09.12.2025, the respondent nos. 3
to 6 were directed to file counter affidavit.
2. Today, on call, no counter affidavit has been received
nor there is any communication from the respondents on why the
counter affidavit could not be filed.
3. Learned State Counsel submits that though no
document has been handed over to him with a prayer for extension
of time, the Circle Officer, Mahishi, Saharsa communicated to him
that they are preparing affidavit.
Patna High Court CWJC No.25104 of 2018(3) dt.03-02-2026
2/4
4. The writ petition was filed in the year 2018, no reply
came for seven years, on 09.12.2025, direction was given to file
reply but in a casual manner, the Circle Officer, Mahishi, Saharsa
informed that reply is being prepared.
5. In that background, he shall be paying Rs. 3,000/- to
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha and
receipt has to be filed in the office by 16.02.2026.
6. Heard the parties.
7. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) Issuance of a writ/direction
including a order of writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to
release the compensation amount of the
acquired land according to market value after
rectification of type of land as 'residential' by
the Govt. of Bihar at Village- Gandaul, Than
No.-72, Anchal Mahishi, District- Saharsa,
which is acquired for construction of Link road
with R.C.C. Bridge as enhancement breath of
of the existing Road (State Highway) No. 17.
(ii) Issuance a direction also to of
follow all the procedure Acquisition in
accordance with RFCTLARR- Act-2013 (Right
to Fair compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-
settlement Act-2013) and classify the type of
land as 'Residential instead of 'Dhanber-2. or
Patna High Court CWJC No.25104 of 2018(3) dt.03-02-2026
3/4
Veeth-2'.
(iii) Any other relief/reliefs may be
granted to petitioners as he is found entitled to
in the facts and circumstances of the case for
the ends of Justice.
3. The matter relates to Land Acquisition Case No. 04
of 2013-14 for construction of Link road with R.C.C. Bridge over
Kosi river. The petitioners’ claim is that their lands also were part
of the compensation.
4. It is to be noted that altogether number of petitioners
have approached this Court in single writ petition and in that
background, the claim put forward by them have to be adjudicated
individually. The document also shows that notices were issued to
them individually, though they chose to submit objection by way
of representation of altogether 79 persons.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that notices were
issued, it is not the further claim of the petitioner that award has
not been prepared and if they have not provided
documents/payment not taken, they have to move before
appropriate authority challenging the award.
6. This Court is also of the view that the Government by
way of advertisement took steps for the acquisition of the land,
petitioners were individually noticed, they should have moved
forward along with their separate documents to satisfy the
authority so that appropriate compensation is extended to them. In
Patna High Court CWJC No.25104 of 2018(3) dt.03-02-2026
4/4
case, they have any objection, would have moved before
appropriate authority.
7. As no further development is on record, the writ
petition is disposed of with the following observations:
(i) if the petitioners have received the
award with/without protest, the remedy lies before
appropriate authority for enhancement of
compensation;
(ii) if pursuant to the said notice, they
have not forwarded their claim, are required to
submit their individual document to satisfy the
authority both on the bonafide of their claim as also
the upgradation of category.
8. It goes without saying that if such individual petitions
come, the same has to be taken to its logical conclusion.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observations.
10. List this case on 20.02.2026 under the heading ‘To
Be Mentioned’ to peruse the receipt showing payment made by the
Circle Officer, Mahishi, Saharsa to Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…