Patna High Court
Swati SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petitioner may approach the appropriate authority or court for redressal, and the writ petition is disposed of.
Summary
Swati Singh filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 25‑06‑2024 of the Commissioner (Arbitrator‑cum‑Commissioner) of Koshi Division, which rejected her claim for compensation on the ground that her land, acquired for the NH‑107 project, was agricultural. She sought a writ setting aside that order and a declaration that her land should be treated as residential for compensation purposes. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the arbitrator’s decision could be reviewed by a court and that the nature of the land warranted higher compensation. The State counsel raised no objection to the petition. Justice Rajiv Roy held that the petitioner is free to approach the appropriate authority or court for redressal of her grievance and consequently disposed of the writ petition without granting any substantive relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Commissioner (Arbitrator‑cum‑Commissioner) rejecting the compensation claim can be set aside by a writ petition
- Whether the land acquired for NH‑107 should be classified as residential rather than agricultural for compensation under the land acquisition law
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Residential land classification
- Writ petition
- Arbitration
- National Highways Authority of India
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3817 of 2026
======================================================
Swati Singh daughter of Shyam Sundar Singh, wife of Deepak Kumar Singh,
resident of village-Panchgachia, P.S.- Bihra, District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary Road Construction Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner Koshi Division, Saharsa.
4. The District Magistrate, Saharsa.
5. The competent Authority cum District Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa.
6. The Circle Officer Kahra, District- Saharsa.
7. The Executive Engineer Road Construction Department, Saharsa.
8. The Union of India through the Secretary Department of Road Transport and
Highways, New Delhi.
9. The Director Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi.
10. The Chairman National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi.
11. The Project Director National Highways Authority of India, Project
Implement Unit Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sumit Kr. Singh, AC to GA-2
For the NHAI : Dr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Advocate
Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 30-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ
setting aside the order dated 25/6/2024 passed by
the Commissioner Koshi Division Saharsa in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3817 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
Arbitration Case No. 78/2021 whereby and
Whereunder the request of the petitioner for
payment of compensation considering her land
appertaining to Mauja Patuaha, Thana NO. 187,
Khata NO. 152, Plot NO. 1820, Area- 0.08508
Acre, Circle Kahara District- Saharsa as
residential in nature which was acquired for the
project NH107 (Maheshkhunt Sonbarsa Raj
Madhepra Purnea section) from kilometre 30.150
to 83.750 has been rejected.
(II) For declaration that the petitioner is
entitled to compensation for her Land so acquired
considering her land as, residential in nature in
lieu of agricultural in nature.
(III) For any other relief(s)/order(s) to
which the petitioner may be found entitled in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Amarnath Jha submits that the petitioner shall be
exploring the legal remedy against the order passed by the
Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
4. Learned State counsel has no objection to it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3817 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
5. In that background, allowing the petitioner to
approach the appropriate Authority/Court for the redressal of the
grievance, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…