Patna High Court

Nirnimesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 19 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The High Court held that the appropriate remedy is to approach the District Magistrate for correction of the award under the 2013 Act, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, who bought a small parcel of land in 1994, challenged acquisition proceedings initiated in 2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that no notice, possession, or compensation was effected before the 2013 Act came into force. An award was later made in 2025 under the repealed 1894 Act, offering compensation based on the 2006 market value, which the petitioner claimed was inadequate and contrary to the 2013 Act. The Court examined the effect of the repeal, the saving provisions of Section 114 of the 2013 Act, and Supreme Court precedents on lapse of acquisition proceedings and compensation determination. It held that the petitioner's remedy lies before the District Magistrate under Sections 33 and 64 of the 2013 Act for correction of the award, rather than by writ. Accordingly, the Court directed the District Magistrate to consider the records and determine a fresh award in line with the 2013 Act and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to inaction before its commencement.
Whether an award made under the repealed 1894 Act after 1 January 2014 is valid.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh compensation award and rehabilitation benefits under the 2013 Act.
Which forum has jurisdiction to determine or correct the compensation award.

Legislation cited

General Clauses Act, 1897 — s. 6
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 17(4), 4, 9
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 114, 24(2), 31, 32, 33, 34, 64
Right to Information Act

Subjects

land acquisition
repeal of legislation
compensation determination
2013 Land Acquisition Act
writ of certiorari
mandamus
rehabilitation and resettlement
district magistrate jurisdiction
lapse of proceedings

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2738 of 2026
======================================================
Nirnimesh Kumar Son of Kapeshwar Prasad Singh, Presently residing at
House No. 80, Siddharth Niketan, Sector 14, Kaushambi, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201010, Permanent address - Village- Mor, P.S.
Mokama, District- Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Union of India, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Railways,
Government of India.
3. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. Urban Development and Housing Department, through the Principal
Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. Commissioner, Patna Division, District- Patna.
6. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
7. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
8. The Administrator, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Patna, Bihar.
9. Circle Officer, Sadar, District- Patna.
10. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar
844101.
11. The Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur Division, East Central Railway,
DRM Office, Danapur, Patna, Bihar 801105.
12. Chief Engineer, Project Director, Neura-Daniyawa Railway Line Project.
13. District Treasury Officer, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ankit Griyaghey, Advocate
Mr.Harshit Griyaghey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Binita Singh, SC 28
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 19-02-2026
Heard Mr. Ankit Griyaghey along with Mr. Harshit

Griyaghey, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and Mrs. Binita Singh, learned SC 28 for the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
2/11

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present

writ petition has sought inter alia the following relief(s), which

is reproduced hereinafter:-

“1. That the petitioner seeks kind
indulgence of this Hon'ble court for the following
relief(s):

a. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the acquisition proceedings
initiated vide notification dated 29.04.2006 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended
by Bihar Act 11 of 1961) and to hold that the acquisition
process stand lapsed in respect of petitioner's land in
terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the
"2013 Act") or otherwise governed by the provisions of
2013 Act as neither compensation/award was paid nor
possession was taken for more than five years prior to
01.01.2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act.

b. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the unlawful and arbitrary award
dated 03.09.2025 prepared in the year 2025 under the
repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the "1894 Act") as the same is without
jurisdiction after coming of the 2013 Act, violative of
Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution and
contrary to binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

c. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to prepare
compensation/award afresh strictly in accordance with
the provisions of the 2013 Act and in terms of the recent
Supreme Court judgments wherein it has been held that if
the award is prepared after undue delay, the land owners
shall be compensated at the current market rate with all
consequential benefits as per the law.

d. For issuance of a appropriate writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) to the respondents to grant
Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits to the petitioner
under Sections 31 to 42 of the 2013 Act:

e. For issuance of any other writ(s),
order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
3/11

petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased 0.06420 acres

of land, appertaining to Khata No.289, Khesra No.220, situated

in Village Bhusaula, Danapur, Patna, through a registered sale

deed dated 26.10.1994, and Jamabandi was duly created in his

name. He remained in lawful possession and regularly paid rent.

In the year 2006, the State issued a notification under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter reffered to as

“Act, 1894”) for acquisition of land, including a portion of

Khesra No. 220 where the petitioner’s land is situated, for

construction of the Neura–Daniyawa New Railway Line,

invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4). However, no

notice under Section 9 of Act, 1894, was ever served upon the

petitioner. Neither the physical possession was taken, nor any

award was prepared and no amount of compensation was paid

any time prior to 01.01.2014. The petitioner continued in

possession and raised plinth construction in 2015 being in

peaceful possession of the land. Petitioner was informed about

the constructed structure which was removed some time in year

2022. Petitioner enquired and was informed that the land was

acquired for construction of Neura-Daniyawa New Railway

Line and in that regard, District Land Acquisition Officer has

recommended the compensation rate at Rs.2,25,00,000 per acre
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
4/11

on 28.11.2012 along with statutory benefits. The Revenue

Inspector submitted report dated 28.08.2025, confirming the

ownership, possession, and entitlement to 100% compensation.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, vide order dated

03.09.2025, determined compensation of the petitioner which

comes to the tune of Rs.6,79,832/- at the applicable MVR for

financial year 2006–07 (Rs. 23,00,000 per acre), which is not in

accordance with law, as once the Award is made after

01.01.2014, i.e., after commencement of the Act, 2013,

compensation/award must be determined strictly under the Act

2013 as per the current market value of the land. The claim of

the petitioner is also supported by the rent fixation determined

by the District Land Officer vide its communication dated

28.11.2012.

4. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon

paragraph no.37 of a recent judgment of the Apex Court in case

of Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others Versus

Government of Karnataka and others, reported in (2025) 7

SCC 580 in support of his claim that if the petitioner is not

entitled for determination of rate of compensation as per the

present value in the vicinity where the land has been acquired,

the petitioner is at least entitled for due compensation on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
5/11

basis of the value of the land (MVR) as having been notified by

the State Government in the vicinity.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the State submitted that the petitioner before availing remedy

under Act, 2013 has straight away filed the present writ petition.

The Act is a complete Code in itself. Section 33 of the Act

provides Corrections to awards by Collector which is inter alia

reproduced hereinafter:

“(1) The Collector may at any time, but not later than six
months from the date of award or where he has been
required under the provisions of this Act to make a
reference to the Authority under section 64, before the
making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or
arithmetical mistakes in either of the awards or errors
arising therein either on his own motion or on the
application of any person interested or local authority:
Provided that no correction which is likely to affect
prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person
has been given a reasonable opportunity of making
representation in the matter.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any
correction made in the award so corrected to all the
persons interested.
(3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to
any person as a result of the correction made under sub-
section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to be
refunded and in the case of any default or refusal to pay, the
same may be recovered, as prescribed by the appropriate
Government.”

6. Without filing any application for determination

of MVR in the area after the repeal of the Act, 1894, reference is

required to be made before the Collector and the Collector as

per the provision prescribed under Section 64 of the Act, is the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
6/11

final authority to interfere with the Award prepared. Learned

counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not given

specific date in respect of the final acquisition of the land and

possession handed over to the railways by the State

Government. On these grounds, learned counsel submitted that

the writ petition being devoid of any merit is fit to be dismissed.

7. Heard the parties.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made on

behalf of the parties and having perused the information

contained in support of the relief as sought for in the present

writ petition. The petitioner seeks due compensation in respect

of acquisition of land allegedly acquired for construction of

Neura-Daniyawa New Railway Line as per the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894). The said Act has been

repealed vide Act, 2013. Since the compensation was paid after

coming into force of Act, 2013, the petitioner seeks

compensation as per Act, 2013. In this regard, I find it apt to

reproduce the Section 114 of Act 2013, which is inter alia as

under:-

“114. Repeal and saving.–
(1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) is hereby
repealed.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the repeal under
sub-section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
7/11

general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act,
1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeals.”
9. Section 114 of the Act, 2013 makes it clear so far

as the effect of repeal of the Act, 1894 is concerned. All the past

actions are saved as per the provision of Section 6 of General

Clauses Act, 1897. The above informations are contained

paragraph no.13 of the writ petition. The total amount of Award

has been calculated on the basis of MVR as it was existing on

the date of notification dated 29.04.2006. The petitioner is

aggrieved for non-payment of full amount of compensation

amount till date as per the present market value of the land

determined by the State Government and being aggrieved by the

meager amount of Award which he has received on the basis of

amount calculated on the basis of MVR of year 2014 on

03.09.2025 and that too under the Act, 1894, although the award

was prepared under the repealed Act, rendering the Award

ineffective.

10. The Act, 2013, is a complete code in itself and

determination of Award in the present case, which has been

challenged by the petitioner, remedy lies before the District

Magistrate, who is having jurisdiction to review the amount of

Award by making necessary correction. In this regard, a

reference can be made to Sections 33 and 64 of the Act 2013. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
8/11

is admitted position that the petitioner has received the Award

in the year 2014 under protest in respect of the acquisition

proceeding which was initiated way back in the year 2006.

11. Law in respect of land having acquired as per

the Act, 1894 and the payment of the compensation after the

lapse of the acquisition proceeding, the consideration has been

made by the Apex Court in case of Indore Development

Authority vs Manoharlal And Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC

1496, which is reproduced hereinafter:

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case
the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered
by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall
continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013
Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or
as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five years
or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor compensation
has been paid. In other words, in case possession has
been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is
no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid,
possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit
is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has
not been deposited with respect to majority of
landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section
4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case
the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
9/11

Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34
of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of
land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more,
compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the
“landowners” as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or
non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to
pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section
31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to
be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section
24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894
Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession
has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for
land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as
on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders
passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of
five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give
rise to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section
24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does
not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
landowners to question the legality of mode of
taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of
deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of
court to invalidate acquisition.”
(emphasis supplied)

12. Recently, the said proposition of law has been

duly considered by the Apex Court in paragraph no. 37 in case
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
10/11

of Bernard Francis Joseph (Supra), which is reproduced

hereinafter:

“37. It can thus be seen that this Court in
Barangore Jute Factory case [Competent Authority v.
Barangore Jute Factory, (2005) 13 SCC 477] observed that
normally, compensation is determined as per the market
price of land on the date of issuance of the notification
regarding acquisition of land but there are judgments of this
Court where in similar situations instead of quashing the
impugned notification, this Court shifted the date of the
notification so that the landowners are adequately
compensated. This Court directed that compensation
payable to the landowners be determined as on the date
when possession of land was taken by the respondents
therein i.e. 19-2-2003.”
(emphasis supplie)
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, as well as, the law laid down by the Apex Court, as

referred hereinabove, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the

District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna, having jurisdiction

for determination of the amount of current amount of Award,

which the petitioner has claimed on the basis of information

provided to him under Right to Information Act in respect of the

MVR in the vicinity of the land which has been acquired. The

claim of the petitioner is also supported by the rent fixed for the

Circle by the Government of Bihar for the purpose of

registering on the basis of the MVR fixed in the area.

14. The District Magistrate is directed to consider

the records relating to land acquisition, particularly the date of

possession and the MVR notified by the State Government, as
Patna High Court CWJC No.2738 of 2026 dt.19-02-2026
11/11

in the year 2014, the petitioner had received the award under

protest and redress the claim of the petitioner well within a

period of six weeks in accordance with law from the date of

communication of this order.

15. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.03.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…