Patna High Court
Basdeo ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court did not grant the writ but directed the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector to verify the existence of any land acquisition proceedings and related records.
Summary
The petitioner, Basdeo Chaudhary, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and its officials to produce records of a purported land acquisition of his raiyati land (Tauzi No. 3296) and, if no acquisition had been effected, to initiate proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay compensation. He also asked that the respondents refrain from taking forceful possession or constructing on the disputed land. The court observed that the petition did not disclose when or how the land was acquired for S.K. Distillery and later transferred to the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), and noted the absence of supporting acquisition records. Consequently, the court directed the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector of Gopalganj to call for the relevant revenue records and verify whether any acquisition proceeding had been initiated. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of Bihar acquired the petitioner’s land for S.K. Distillery and subsequently transferred it to BIADA without complying with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the alleged acquisition of his raiyati land.
- Whether the respondents can lawfully take possession or construct on the disputed land pending verification of acquisition records.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- compensation
- RFCTLARR Act 2013
- revenue records
- possession
- Bihar
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2782 of 2026
======================================================
Basdeo Chaudhary son of Shiv Lal Chaudhary, Resident of village- Hakim
Tola, Sauren, District-Gopalganj, Pin Code-841438.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Land
Reforms Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Gopalganj.
4. The Additional Collector, Gopalganj.
5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hathwa, Dist- Gopalganj.
6. The Circle Officer, Bihta, Hathwa, District- Gopalganj.
7. The Secretary, Department of Industry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
8. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(BIADA), Bihar, Patna.
9. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(BIADA), Gopalganj.
10. The Development Officer, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(BIADA), Gopalganj.
11. The Managing Director, Bihar State Sugar Mill Corporation, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr.Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
Ms.Sheshadri Kumari, Advocate
Mr.Shashank Kashyap, Advocate
For Sugar Corporation : Mr.Gyan Shankar, Advocate
Ms.Ankita Roy, Advocate
For BIADA : Mr.Vagisha Pragya, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Amit Bhushan, AC to GP 17
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 27-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey along with Mr.
Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Sheshadri Kumari and Mr. Shashank
Kashyap, learned counsels for the petitioner; Mr. Gyan Shankar
along with Ms. Ankita Roy, learned counsels for the Sugar
Patna High Court CWJC No.2782 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026
2/4
Corporation; Ms. Vagisha Pragya, learned counsel for the
BIADA and Mr. Amit Bhushan, learned AC to GP 17 for the
State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is repro-
duced hereinafter:-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the na-
ture of Mandamus directing the respondents to
produce records of so called land acquisition
case, in which land of petitioner has been ac-
quired and if not so then they may be directed
to initiate land acquisition proceeding under
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Reset-
tlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of the dis-
puted land and and to pay adequate compen-
sation to petitioners for their raiyati lands
bearing Tauzi No. 3296, Thana No. 1060,
Khata No. 135/174, Plot No. 332, having its
area 9 Katha 7½ Dhur, situated at Mauza
Badarjimi, Anchal Hathua, for which Jama-
bandi No. 202 running in the name of the peti-
tioner.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature
of Mandamus directing the respondents, partic-
ularly respondents second set, to not take
forceful possession, or making any type of con-
struction over the raiyati/purchased land of pe-
titioner bearing Tauzi No. 3296, Thana No.
1060, Khata No. 135/174, Plot No. 332, having
its area 9 Katha 7½ Dhurs, situated at Mauza
Badarjimi, Anchal Hathua, for which Jama-
bandi No. 202 is running in the name of the pe-
titioner.
(iii) For any other writ/writs,
order/orders for which petitioners deem enti-
tled to”
Patna High Court CWJC No.2782 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026
3/4
3. Considering the reliefs as prayed for in the present
writ petition, as well as, the pleadings supported by the
documents brought on record, the petitioner claims title and
ownership over the land appertaining to Tauzi No. 3296, Thana
No. 1060, Khata No. 135/174, Plot No. 332, total area
measuring 9 Kathas and 7½ Dhurs, situated at Mauza Badarjim,
Anchal Hathua, Jamabandi No. 202.
4. From the averments made in the writ petition, it can
not be ascertained, as to, when the aforesaid land was acquired
by the State Government for S.K. Distillery, which has
subsequently gone in the possession of BIADA pursuant to a
lawful order of transfer by the State Government. It further
appears from paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition that the land
has allegedly been mutated in favour of BIADA without
reference to any supporting acquisition records.
5. In such circumstances, the petitioner, if so advised,
may avail appropriate remedy before the District Magistrate-
cum-Collector, Gopalganj.
6. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gopalganj,
is directed to call for the relevant revenue records and the
concerned revenue officer in respect of the land as described in
the writ petition to verify, whether any acquisition proceeding
Patna High Court CWJC No.2782 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026
4/4
was initiated in respect of the piece of land, which the petitioner
claims belong to him and he is entitled for compensation.
7. With the above observation/direction, the present
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U
Checking your session…