Patna High Court
Indradeo Singh and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court held that the petitioners must pursue their claims before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners sought multiple writs directing the State of Bihar and its officials to refund TDS deducted on compensation, recalculate and pay compensation for land acquired for a highway under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, include payments for trees and a commercial line hotel, apply correct market rates, and pay interest at 18% per annum. The petitioners alleged that the respondents illegally retained TDS and paid compensation based on outdated rates, violating the new Act. The State counsel argued that the appropriate forum for such claims is the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA). The Court observed that the petitioners should approach LARRA within eight weeks and that the writ petition would be disposed of after such hearing. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, effectively dismissing it pending the petitioners' approach to LARRA.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents illegally deducted TDS on compensation and are liable to refund it.
- Whether compensation for the acquired land should be recalculated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether the court can direct payment for trees, commercial line hotel and interest for delay.
- Whether the writ jurisdiction is appropriate or the matter should be referred to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA).
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- TDS
- writ of mandamus
- LARRA
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- interest
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2561 of 2017
======================================================
1. Indradeo Singh and Anr
2. Chandradeo Singh @ Chandra Singh, Late Deonandan Singh, residetns of
Village- Jalalpur, P.O.- Gultenganj, P.S.- Chhapra Muffasil, Circle- Sadar
Chhapra, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. Commissioner, Saran Division, Chhapra.
3. Collector, Saran, Chhapra.
4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Saran, Chhapra.
5. Arbitrator-cum-Additional Collector, Saran, Chhapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Roy, Adv.
Mrs. Anu Narayan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivekanand Singh, AC to Gp18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 27-02-2026 Heard Mrs. Anu Narayan, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned State Counsel.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) Issuance of an appropriate writ
including a writ in the nature of writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to
forthwith refund the sums of money deducted
towards TDS in making payment of amounts
of compensation on acquisition of the
petitioner's lands of Survey no. 199 of Khata
no. 154 under Thana no. 312 of Mauza
Patna High Court CWJC No.2561 of 2017(3) dt.27-02-2026
2/5
Jalalpur in Sadar Chhapra for construction
of road and / or its widening for the purpose
of 4 lane NH 19 from Hajipur to Chhapra to
Gopalganj. In respect of the aforementioned
acquisition pertaining to Award no. 23 the
respondents illegally deducted a sum of Rs.
4,18,831.41 as TDS which was not
deductible and even after deduction they did
not remit it to the income tax authority and
are retaining the same which was / is
refundable with interest @ 18% per annum.
The amount of compensation of Award no.
23 is too low for which representations had
failed to bring any response nor there is any
anxiety of the respondents to refund the
remaining 20% of the compensation amount
as they initially paid only 80% of the meagre
amount calculated at much lower rate.
(ii) issuance of an appropriate writ
including a writ in the nature of writ of
mandamus directing / commanding the
respondents to forthwith calculate and make
adequate and appropriate payments in
respect of trees and commercial line hotel for
which no payments had been made.
(iii) Issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of writ of mandamus
directing / commanding the respondents to
forthwith recalculate the amounts of
compensation paid to the petitioners as the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2561 of 2017(3) dt.27-02-2026
3/5
proceedings though commenced in 2010-11
yet the payments thereof have been made
very belatedly after 3 years when the new
Act, ie. The Right To Fair Compensa-tion
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to in short as the new
Act) had already come into operation with
effect from 01.01.2014 and therefore the
compensation ought to have been paid under
the provisions of the new Act since such
much belated payment of compensation
cannot be allowed to cause any disadvantage
to the petitioners because whatever delay
has occurred it is attributable to the
respondents and for whose lapses and laches
the petitioners and/or such other persons
cannot be made to suffer.
(iv) Issuance of an appropriate
writ including a writ in the nature of writ of
mandamus directing / commanding the
respondents to apply the correct principles in
computation of compensation of acquired
lands with reference to the market rate of
such lands and the prescribed government
rate for registration of such lands and when
rates are correctly applied the amounts of
compensation would be more than double the
amounts of compensation aforementioned
and therefore after correctly calculating the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2561 of 2017(3) dt.27-02-2026
4/5
amounts of compensation on correct
principles the balance / remainder of the
recalculated compensation amount be kindly
directed to be paid forthwith. In this regard
the respondents have to keep in mind that the
computation has been done by them on the
basis of the rate which was applicable in
2011-12 and the payments have been made
in July and September, 2014, but in the
meantime the new rates came into operation
with effect from March, 2013, and therefore
all computations and payments are to be
made and done on the basis of the rates
which are applicable since March, 2013.
Thus the difference amounts be also ordered
to be paid to the petitioners with interest.
(v) Issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of writ of mandamus to pay all
such sums of money with interest @ 18% per
annum due to delay and illegality committed
by the respondents.
(vi) Issuance of any other
appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as
may be deemed fit and proper in the facts
and circumstance of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that for
the land acquired, he was entitled at commercial rate but the
officials have denied.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.2561 of 2017(3) dt.27-02-2026
5/5
should move before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority (henceforth for short, ‘LARRA’) as the
authority is functioning.
5. In that background, Mrs. Narayan, on instruction,
submits that the petitioners shall be approaching the concerned
authority in next eight weeks.
6. If the petitioners approach the concerned authority,
the same be taken up and after hearing all the parties, be
disposed of in accordance with law at an earliest.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…