Patna High Court
Savita Devi @ Sabita DeviversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the factual dispute over land acquisition cannot be decided in a writ petition and the petitioner has not shown that the railway initiated acquisition proceedings.
Summary
Savita Devi filed a writ petition seeking compensation for land allegedly taken by Indian Railways under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. She claimed ownership of a 3.75‑decimal parcel in Bhojpur, purchased in 2006, and alleged that the railways had occupied the land and erected pillars without paying compensation. The railway authorities and the Union of India contended that no acquisition proceedings had been initiated and that the petition lacked documentary evidence. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the railways had moved to acquire the land and that the dispute involved factual issues unsuitable for adjudication in a writ petition. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil or administrative forum and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for a grievance concerning alleged unauthorized occupation of land by a public authority?
- Can a writ petition be entertained when the factual dispute requires determination of acquisition proceedings and compensation under the 2013 Act?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- writ petition
- Indian Railways
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- civil remedy
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4928 of 2026
======================================================
Savita Devi @ Sabita Devi wife of Sri Amar Singh, resident of village-
Rampur Mathiya, P.S.-Simri, District- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Govt. Of
India, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
3. The General Manager, Eastern Central Railway Zone, Hajipur, Vaishali,
Bihar.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur Mandal, Eastern Central
Railway, Danapur, Patna.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Cum Public Information Officer,
East Central Railway, Danapur
6. The Senior Divisional Engineer, Co- Ordinance, Danapur Mandal, Eastern
Central Railway, Danapur, Patna.
7. The Divisional Engineer Line, Danapur Mandal, Eastern Central Railway,
Danapur, Patna.
8. The Assistant Engineer Line, Danapur Mandal, Eastern Central Railway,
Danapur, Patna.
9. The Inspector of Work, Engineering Branch, Eastern Central Railway,
Danapur Mandal, Branch Ara, District-Bhojpur.
10. The District Collector, Bhojpur, Ara.
11. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhojpur, Ara.
12. The Circle Officer, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur, Ara.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Ojaswee Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Aniket, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC-5
For UOI : Mr. Rajen Sahay, Sr. CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
Patna High Court CWJC No.4928 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/4
“for issuance of appropriate writ, Rule
or Direction to the respondent authorities
particularly to respondent no. 1 to 9 to make
payment of the compensation amount on the basis
of present Market Value on the date of payment of
compensation amount in pursuance to provisions
of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act 2013" along with statutory
interest to the petitioner as the land of the
petitioner has been taken in possession by the
authorities without informing the petitioner or
without completing the process of acquisition, as
no amount of compensation has been paid by the
respondent, and the said writ is also for issuance of
direction to the respondent authorities to make
payment of compensation to the petitioner for
damage of the crops standing upon the land at the
time of taking possession in the month of October
2015 and this writ application is also for grant of
relief or reliefs as the petitioner is found entitled.”
3. The matter relates to Khata No. 402 (Old Khata No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4928 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/4
195) Khesara No. 90 (Old Khesara No. 74) (Area 3.75
decimals) in the Mauza-Bhelai, District-Bhojpur. The petitioner
claims to have purchased the land from one Kameshwar Singh
(not been made party-respondent in the present case) in the year
2006 and fourteen years later, rent receipt has been provided to
show that she is having possession over the land. The grievance
is that the Indian Railways have grabbed the land and the pillars
have come up but no compensation paid.
4. The Circle Officer, Udwantnagar on the objection
preferred by the villagers informed vide letter no. 414 dated
06.03.2025 to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhojpur at
Ara in which it has been recorded that though the Railways
claimed the land to be their, the 1874 Railways map do not have
any khata/khesra.
5. The petitioner submits that on the basis of said
letter issued by the Circle Officer, Udwantnagar, a case is made
out in her favour and accordingly, appropriate order be passed.
6. The Indian Railways is represented by Mr. Rajen
Sahay and the State is also present. Their joint submission is
that the petitioner has approached this Court without any
document to show that Indian Railways, at any point of time,
has moved forward for the acquisition of the land in question. In
Patna High Court CWJC No.4928 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
4/4
fact, the Railways have complained that some of the villagers
are trying to usurp the Railways property.
7. Having heard the parties, in the opinion of the
Court, the petitioner has failed to make out a case showing that
the Railways have come forward and tried to usurp the lands of
the petitioner.
8. If the petitioner/villagers have any grievance and/or
there is any law and order problem, the appropriate remedy is to
move before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the said area as
also for the civil dispute, before a Competent Civil Court.
9. Such disputed question of fact cannot be decided in
a writ petition.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…