Patna High Court
Lal Bahadur ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court declined to issue mandamus and instead directed the District Magistrate‑Cum‑Collector to verify acquisition records, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
Petitioners Lal Bahadur Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar Yadav claimed ownership of a 9‑katha plot (Tauzi No.3296, Thana No.1060, Khata No.135) that they allege was acquired by the State of Bihar for S.K. Distillery and later transferred to the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA). They sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to produce land‑acquisition records, to initiate acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and to restrain any possession or construction on the land. The Court noted that the petition did not establish when or whether the acquisition took place and referred to the earlier decision in Basdeo Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (CWJC No.2782 of 2026) with identical reliefs. Accordingly, the Court directed the District Magistrate‑Cum‑Collector of Gopalganj to call for relevant revenue records to verify any acquisition and compensation liability, and disposed of the writ petition. The petitioners were instructed to appear before the District Magistrate within eight weeks for further proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of Bihar has lawfully acquired the petitioners' land and is liable to pay compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the respondents to produce acquisition records or to initiate acquisition proceedings.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to restrain the respondents from taking possession or constructing on the disputed land.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- compensation
- writ jurisdiction
- revenue records
- RFCTLARR Act 2013
- BIADA
- Bihar State Sugar Mill Corporation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3347 of 2026
======================================================
1. Lal Bahadur Chaudhary son of Hajari Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-
Jigna Rajghat, Jigna Jagarnath, District- Gopalganj, Pin Code-841438.
2. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, son of Hajari Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Jigna
Rajghat, Jigna Jagarnath, 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, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Adv.
Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anirban Kundu, SC- 24
For BIADA : Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknari, Adv.
For Bihar State Sugar : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for
the petitioner duly assisted by Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Mr. Anirban
Kundu for the State and Ms. Vagisha Pragya for ‘the BIADA’.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3347 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
2/5
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
For issuance of writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to
produce records of so called land acquisition
case in which land of petitioner has been
acquired 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, Resettlement Act.
2013 for acquisition of the disputed land and
pay adequate compensation to petitioners for
their raiyati lands bearing Tauzi No.3296,
Thana No. 1060, Khata No. 135, Plot No.
359 having its area 9 katha, Situated at
Mauza Badarjimi, Anchal Hathua, for which
Online Jamabandi No. 197122100076830,
197122100076831 and 197122100076830
are running in the name of petitioner's father.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the
nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents particularly respondents 2nd set
to not take force full possession or making
any type of construction over the
raiyati/purchased land of petitioner bearing
Tauzi No.3296, Thana No. 1060, Khata No.
135, Plot No. 359 having its area 9 katha,
Situated at Mauza Badarjimi, Anchal
Patna High Court CWJC No.3347 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
3/5
Hathua, for which Online Jamabandi No.
197122100076830, 197122100076831 and
197122100076830 are running in the name
of petitioner's father.
(iii) For any other writ/writs,
order/orders for which petitioner deemed
entitled to.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for ‘the BIADA’ has
taken this Court to a case of Basdeo Chaudhary vs. State of
Bihar (CWJC No. 2782 of 2026) disposed of on 27.02.2026
which is exactly the same prayer and the Co-ordinate Bench
passed the following order:
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3347 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
4/5
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
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.
4. This Court has gone through the prayer of the
Basdeo Chaudhary (supra) and is of the opinion that the
submission put forward by the learned counsel for ‘the BIADA’
is correct. In that background, following the order passed in the
aforesaid case, the same order is being passed in the present
case.
5. Let the petitioner appear before the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.3347 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
5/5
Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Gopalganj in next eight weeks and if
he prefers petition, the same shall be taken up/ relevant parties
be noticed and the matter has to be taken to its logical
conclusion at an earliest.
6. Needless to add, if the petitioner is entitled to the
compensation, the process has to be taken in accordance with
law for payment.
7. Any development that takes place in between shall
be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…