Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Priyadarshan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The court held that the compensation must be recalculated on the basis of the current market value rate for commercial/residential land, as directed in the earlier Kakolat Road Muawza Samiti judgment, and therefore disposed of the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of landowners from Paijuna village, challenged a notice dated 17-11-2025 issued under Section 37(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, alleging that the authorities incorrectly classified their land as "Dhanhar" and granted an inappropriate solatium. They sought quashing of the notice, recalculation of compensation on the basis that the land is commercial/residential, and a writ of mandamus directing prompt payment of the revised amount for land acquired under Case No. 08/2024 for a highway widening project. The court noted that the respondents raised no objection and referred to an earlier decision in Kakolat Road Muawza Samiti (CWJC No. 1701 of 2026) which directed the concerned authority to recalculate compensation using the current market value rate (MVR) and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (AIR 2020 SC 1496). Applying that precedent, the court ordered that the petitioners’ claim be considered for recalculation and payment, and consequently disposed of the writ petition. The disposition effectively upheld the earlier order’s directive and closed the present petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether the notice under Section 37(2) granting solatium is valid when the land is mischaracterized as Dhanhar.
  • Whether compensation must be recalculated based on the commercial/residential nature of the land and current market value rate.
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the release of the appropriate compensation.
  • Whether Section 64 of the 2013 Act is applicable for directing the matter to the appropriate authority.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • land acquisition
  • compensation
  • solatium
  • mischaracterization of land
  • mandamus
  • Section 37(2)
  • Section 64
  • market value rate
  • Right to Fair Compensation Act

Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3953 of 2026
     ======================================================
1.    Priyadarshan Kumar Son of Late Arjun Prasad, Resident of Village- Paijuna,
      Post Office- Paharpur, Police Station- Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar (805126).
2.   Vinay Kumar Son of Late Arjun Prasad, Resident of Village- Paijuna, Post
     Office- Paharpur, Police Station- Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar (805126).
3.   Satyendra Prasad Verma Son of Late Mahavir Mahto, Resident of Village-
     Paijuna, Post Office- Paharpur, Police Station- Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar
     (805126).
4.   Shailendra Kumar Son of Ramchandra Prasad, Resident of Village- Paijuna,
     Post Office- Paharpur, Police Station- Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar (805126).
5.   Bhagwat Prasad Son of Late Govind Mahto, Resident of Village-
     SonuBigha, Kadirganj, Post Office- Kadirganj, Police Station-Kadirganj,
     Nawada, Bihar (805104).
6.   Ramchandra Prasad Son of Late Rameshwar Mahto, Resident of Village-
     Paijuna, Post Office- Paharpur, Police Station- Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar
     (805126).
7.   Devnandan Prasad Son of Late Kisun Mahto, Resident of Village- Paijuna,
     Post Office- (Paharpur), Police Station- Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar (805126).
8.   Ram Pravesh Prasad Son of Late Ram Prasad Mahto, Resident of Village-
     Paijuna, Post Office- Paharpur, Police Station- Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar
     (805126).
9.   Dulari Devi Wife of Late Kuladip Mahto, Resident of Village- Paijuna, Post
     Office- Paharpur, Police Station- Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar (805126).
10. Santi Devi Wife of Late Kailash Mahto, Resident of Village- Paijuna, Post
    Office- Paharpur, Police Station- Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar (805126).

                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
     and Land Reforms, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.
2.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Old
     Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.
3.   The District Magistrate, Nawada, Bihar.
4.   The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nawada, Bihar.
5.   The Additional District Land Acquisition Officer, Nawada, Bihar.
6.   The Circle Officer, Akbarpur, Nawada, Bihar.
7.   The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawada, Bihar.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. Government Advocate (11)
         Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                                     2/5




                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   31-03-2026                 Heard the parties.

                               2. The present petition has been preferred for the

                   following relief(s):

                                               “I. For quashing of the Notices dated

                                   17.11.2025 under Section 37(2) of the Right to Fair

                                   Compensation            and    Transparency    in   Land

                                   Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

                                   2013 by which inappropriate solatium has been

                                   granted to the petitioners without considering the

                                   facts and the relevant documents and further for

                                   recalculation of amount of compensation totally

                                   into consideration the fact that the nature of

                                   acquired land is commercial / residential and not

                                   Dhanhar.

                                               It    is     stated   that   the   respondent

                                   authorities failed to recognize the nature of the

                                   land. The respondent arrived at the compensation

                                   amount by considering the nature of land as

                                   "Dhanhar" (धनहर) which is not permissible under

                                   the law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                            3/5




                                      II. For issuance of an appropriate writ,

                          order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature

                          of mandamus directing the respondent authorities

                          to forthwith release the appropriate compensation

                          amount payable in respect of the land in question

                          acquired under the Land Acquisition Case No.

                          08/2024 for the construction/widening of the State

                          Highway 103 Manjhbe to Govindpur Road

                          appertaining to Mauza -Paijuna, Thana No. 221.

                                      It is sated that the actual nature of land

                          is Commercial/Residential and not "Dhanhar"

                          (धनहर),

                                      In the alternative the petitioner further

                          prays for direction upon the respondent District

                          Magistrate, Nawada to refer the matter to

                          appropriate authority under the provision of

                          section 64 of the Right to For compensation and

                          transparency in land acquisition, Rehabilitation

                          and Resettlement Act, 2013, for which appropriate

                          application has already been filed by the petitioner.

                                      III. For any other direction(s), order(s),

                          relief(s) or consequential relief(s) to which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                            4/5




                          petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and

                          circumstances of this case.”

                      3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the

          petitioners submit that they shall be approaching the concerned

          authority in the light of earlier order passed by a Coordinate

          Bench in Kakolat Road Muawza Samiti and Ors. vs The

          State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 1701 of 2026) disposed of

          on 03.02.2026.

                      4. The respondents have no objection.

                      5. Paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the order passed in

          Kakolat Road Muawza Samiti (supra) read as follows:

                                      “4. In view of the recorded evidence and

                          the established MVR of the area, in which vicinity,

                          petitioners' land has been acquired, I find it proper

                          that the concerned authority must give due regard

                          to the same and recalculate the amount of Award at

                          the current rate of MVR so that the petitioners

                          should not be made to suffer financially in any

                          manner. The claim of the petitioners is supported

                          by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

                          Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal

                          & Ors., reported in AIR 2020 SC 1496 and the
          Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                                      5/5




                                    amendment brought in the Act, 2013 in the year

                                    2018. Admittedly, in the present case, the

                                    petitioners have not received the amount of

                                    compensation till date.

                                                5. The writ petition, accordingly, stands

                                    disposed of.”

                                6. In that background, the writ petition is also

                    disposed of in the aforesaid terms.



                                                  (Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.