Patna High Court

Mukesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: RAJIV ROY

Holding

The writ petition was dismissed, with the court directing the District Collector to determine the status of the land and any compensation entitlement in accordance with the applicable land acquisition statutes.

Summary

Fourteen residents of Choprabazar, Purnea, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued for land acquisition under the National Highways project. They alleged that an ex‑parte order had granted them a meager compensation without notice and that their houses were being demolished for a proposed truck lay‑by and NH‑107 construction. The petitioners claimed that some of the land had previously been acquired in 1952‑56 and that they had never received compensation for that acquisition. The State and NHAI contended that compensation had been paid under the 2021 notification and that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings. The court found the factual matrix unclear and directed the District Collector to examine the records, determine whether the land forms part of the current acquisition, and decide on compensation within a stipulated period, disposing of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the ex‑parte order granting compensation without notice is valid under the Land Acquisition Act and related statutes.
Whether the authorities can acquire and demolish petitioners' properties for a truck lay‑by and NH‑107 without complying with statutory procedures.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for lands allegedly acquired in 1952‑56 and/or under the 2021 notification.
Whether the District Collector has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the compensation claims and issue appropriate orders.
Whether the proposed truck lay‑by should be shifted away from the market‑residential area as prayed for.

Legislation cited

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
National Highways Authority of India
ex‑parte order
truck lay‑by
statutory compliance
district collector
notification 2021
1952 acquisition

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4497 of 2025
======================================================
1. Mukesh Kumar S/o- Ram Chandra Bhagat, R/o- Ward no.-02, Gangapur,
P.S. Janakinagar, District- Purnea.
2. Anil Kumar Bhagat, S/o- late Munindra Prasad Bhagat, R/o- Chopra Ram
Nagar, P.S- Jankinagar, District- Purnea.
3. Ashok Bhagat, S/o- late Munindra Bhagat, R/o- Chopra Ram Nagar, P.S.
Jankinagar, District- Purnea.
4. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, S/o- Baldev Sah, R/o- Ward no.- 03, Belchand,
Mohania Chalda, P.S. Janakinagar District- Purnea.
5. Sita Devi, W/o- Suresh Kumar Bhagat, R/o- Near N.11-107, Choprabazar,
Ward no.-05. Ramnagar Pharsahi, Chopra Ram Nagar, P.S- Jankinagar,
District- Purnea.
6. Ranivati Devi, W/o- late Chhotan Manjhi, R/o- Ward no.-05.- Choprabazar,
Ramnagar Pharsahi, P.S. Jankinagar, District- Purnea.
7. Rambha Devi, W/o- Upendra Prasad Sah, R/o- Ward no.-05, Choprabazar,
Ramnagar Pharsahi, P.S. Jankinagar, District- Purnea.
8. Aarti Devi, W/o- Chandan Kumar Pankaj, R/o- Near N.H-107, Choprabazar,
Ward no.-05, Ramnagar Pharsahi, P.S- Jankinagar, District- Purnea.
9. Rajiv Kumar Singh, S/o- late Bateshwar Singh, Ward no.-05, Choprabazar,
Ramnagar Pharsahi, P.S-Jankinagar, District- Purnea, Bihar.
10. Naresh Kumar Bhagat, S/o- late Kare Lal Bhagat, R/o- Chopara Bazar, Ward
no.-04, Ramnagar Pharsahi, Chopra Ram Nagar, P.S. Janakinagar District-
Purnea.
11. Chandra Kumar Bhagat, S/o-Jageshwar Bhagat, R/o- Near Bus Stand, Ward
no.-02, Choparabazar, Ramnagar Milik, P.S. Janakinagar, District- Purnea.
12. Uday Kumar Singh, S/o- Harendra Prasad Singh, R/o- near N.11.107,
Choprabazar, Ward no.-05. Ramnagar Pharsahi, Chopra Ram Nagar, P.S-
Jankinagar, District- Purnea.
13. Arya Jaiswal, W/o- Tej Prakash, R/o-Ward no.-04, Choparabazar, Ramnagar
Pharsahi, P.S. Janakinagar. District- Purnea.
14. Pradip Kumar Bhagat, S/o- Late Banarsi Prasad, R/o- Ward no.-05.
Choprabazar, Ramnagar Pharsahi, P.S. Janakinagar District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, Bihar.
4. The District Magistrate, Purnea, Bihar.
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Purnea, Bihar.
6. The National Highways Authority of India through Regional Officer, Bihar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4497 of 2025(5) dt.24-03-2026
2/9

Patna.
7. The Chief Engineer, National Highways Authority of India, Purnea, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
: Mrs. Mira Kumari, Advocate
: Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel (15)
For the NHAI : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shandilya, Advocate
: Ms. Ankita Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER

5 24-03-2026 Heard Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioners duly assisted by Mrs. Mira Kumari

and learned counsel representing the State as also learned

counsel representing the National Highway Authority of India.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant

of following relief(s):

“(i) for quashing the notices dated

08/04/2023 Vide File No.10-30/2021-22, Panchat

No.13, Ramnagar Pharsahi issued under

signature Respondent District Land-Acquisition

Officer, Purnea, in the name of some of the

petitioners (Suresh Bhagat husband of petitioner

no. 5.) 7.8 (Bateshwar Singh-father of Petitioner

no.9)11 and 14 who had in arbitrary manner

passed an ex-parte order for giving

compensation a meager amount to the petitioners
Patna High Court CWJC No.4497 of 2025(5) dt.24-03-2026
3/9

without notice before initiation of land

acquisition proceeding under the Act.

(ii) for the issuance of writ of

Mandamus for directing and refraining the

respondent authorities specifically Respondent

nos.-5 and 6 from forcefully acquiring the lands

of the above-named Petitioners which was

marked in 'Red colour' on the wall of the

petitioners of houses/shops and from demolishing

the houses/shops of the Petitioners for

construction of 'Truck Lay-by' in the midst of

market of Choprabazar situated in the area only

about 500 meters, where the petitioners and the

local residents have their houses and they are

living with their family members since years

back, further the proposed Truck lay-by' area is

also in between the market and residential area

of the whole locality.

(iii) for the issuance of writ of

Mandamus for directing and refraining the

respondent authorities not to construct 'Truck

Lay-By' on the road side land situated in only in

the area about 500 meters between the market
Patna High Court CWJC No.4497 of 2025(5) dt.24-03-2026
4/9

and residential area of the whole locality, and

kindly direct the respondents to shift the

proposed 'Truck Lay-By out of the market area

either East or West, where there is several vacant

land either of Government of Bihar or cultivable

land of Raiyats of main Road side.

(iv) for the issuance of writ of

Mandamus for directing the respondent

authorities to take action in consonance with the

laws laid down in the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, Requisitioning and Acquisition of

Immovable Property Act, 1952, Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 and the National Highways Act, 1956 for

taking the land of the petitioners for construction

of NH-107, which was marked by the authorities

as 'green colour’ on the wall of the houses/shops

of the petitioners.

(v) for any other relief/relief (s) for

which the petitioners are found entitled to in

accordance with law and in the facts and in the

circumstances of this case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.4497 of 2025(5) dt.24-03-2026
5/9

3. The matter relates to the construction of

Maheshkhut-Sonbarsa Raj-Saharsa-Madhepura-Purnea Section

for which the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway

(henceforth for short ‘the MORTH’), New Delhi came out with a

notification firstly on 26.03.2021 and later on 20.07.2021.

4. Fourteen petitioners are there, all claim to be

resident of that area having their respective raiyati land which is

going to be acquired. The claim is that though the names reflect

in the notification, notices have only been issued to the four

persons and in those cases also, in a discriminatory manner, the

award has been prepared without considering the category of the

land.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has

taken this Court to a map issued by the Project Director,

National Highway Authority of India, Begusarai which records

that all the land that is/are going to be acquired, some of them

were already acquired in the year 1952-56.

6. The submission is that though it has been recorded

that some of the lands were acquired in the aforesaid year, the

petitioners never received any compensation. Further submission

is that the lands are being taken/acquired for a construction for

which they have no objection, the buildings/residences are
Patna High Court CWJC No.4497 of 2025(5) dt.24-03-2026
6/9

demolished and there is no clarity whether they are entitled to

the compensation pursuant to the recent notification and/or

whether they were ever given any compensation relating to the

earlier acquisition in the year 1952-56.

7. Pursuant to the order passed by the coordinate

Bench, the affidavits have come both on behalf of the State as

also ‘the NHAI’, learned State counsel has taken this Court to

the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 to 5

with specific reference to the paragraph no.19 which read as

follows:

“19. That with regard to the statement made

in Para No.30 of the writ petition it is submitted

that admittedly such raiyats/petitioners are paid

compensation whose raiyati land is acquired by

the State vide Notification No.2677 dated

20.07.2021 published U/s 3(ii) of the National

Highways Act, 1956 and notice U/s 37(2) of the

Act 30 of 2013 was also served to such

landholders/petitioners.”

8. This Court can only observe that by referring to this

paragraph, the State has only complicated the matter further.

There is no clarity on the point:

(i) whether the land of the petitioners
Patna High Court CWJC No.4497 of 2025(5) dt.24-03-2026
7/9

are part of the construction that is going to be

undertaken in the said Maheshkunt-Sonbarsa

Raj-Saharsa-Madhepura-Purnea Section or not;

(ii) whether they are entitled to the

compensation or not and/or;

(iii) whether they have already

received compensation pursuant to the

acquisition made in the year 1952-56.

9. Another counter affidavit is on behalf of ‘the

NHAI’ and learned counsel has taken this Court to paragraph

no.12 which read as under:

“12. That in reply to the contents of para 22

it is submitted that it is incorrect to say that land

was acquired by NHAI in 1952-56. However, it

was acquired by RCD in year 1952-56. The

payment of compensation to then raiyats are

matter of record and anything contrary to record

is denied. It is denied that there is any

contradictory statement.”

10. From the aforesaid facts, one thing is clear, an

acquisition took place in the year 1952-56 by the Road

Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. However, whether the

petitioners who claim to be raiyati land owners of the said area
Patna High Court CWJC No.4497 of 2025(5) dt.24-03-2026
8/9

were compensated or not, the State counsel is mum on it.

11. The notification dates back to the year 2021, we

are in the year 2026. Still, the common man/woman/citizen are

moving from pillar to post for their rightful dues.

12. In that background, it would be futile keeping the

case pending. Instead, onus lies on the head of the district

namely the Collector, Purnea (respondent no.4) to look into the

matter, summon the respondent no.5, the District Land

Acquisition Officer, Purnea alongwith the relevant files relating

to acquisition of the land in the year 1952-56 and come to the

conclusion:

(i) whether the land of the petitioners

are part of the present acquisition process and/or

it already stands acquired;

(ii) in both the cases, whether the

petitioners are entitled to the compensation

and/or whether they have already received

compensation.

13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit

that the aggrieved petitioners shall be filing their respective

representations individually alongwith all the relevant

documents before the concerned authority, the Collector, Purnea

in next eight weeks.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4497 of 2025(5) dt.24-03-2026
9/9

14. Learned State counsel as also the learned counsel

representing ‘the NHAI’ jointly submit that they shall be

cooperating in the matter and see to it that the separate cases of

the petitioners are taken to its logical conclusion.

15. In that background, if the petitioners individually

prefer petition in next eight weeks, the Collector, Purnea is duty

bound to look into the matter as recorded above and pass a

reasoned order at an earliest and in any case, within four months

from the date, the representation of an individual is received in

his/her office.

16. In case, any of the petitioner is found entitled to

the compensation, he/she shall be paid the amount in next eight

weeks after passing the order.

17. In case he/she is not entitled, the reasoned order

must record the facts which led to the rejection of the claim.

18. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid

observation.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…