Patna High Court
Sushila DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to the compensation amount as determined in Title Suit No. 12 of 2018, and no objection exists to its release.
Summary
The petitioners, Sushila Devi and Om Prakash Singh, sought the release of 25% of the compensation amount for lands acquired for National Highway‑83, claiming they had not received any payment while other agnates had. The court noted a prior judgment in Title Suit No. 12 of 2018 that divided the suit property equally between the petitioners and the respondents Charlie and Gunjan Sinha. The petitioners argued that the District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO) had withheld payment due to a pending Title Suit No. 50 of 2015, which the respondents admitted pertained to different land. The DLAO’s affidavit confirmed that the pending suit was unrelated to the acquired land, and no objection to payment existed in the DLAO’s records. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to their share of compensation as per the unchallenged order in Title Suit No. 12 of 2018. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed, directing the DLAO to release the compensation amount to the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a share of the compensation amount for the land acquired for National Highway‑83.
- Whether the pending Title Suit No. 50 of 2015 bars the release of compensation to the petitioners.
- Whether any objection exists in the office of the District Land Acquisition Officer against payment to the petitioners.
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Title suit
- Partition of property
- Writ petition
- National Highway‑83
- District Land Acquisition Officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4946 of 2023
======================================================
1. Sushila Devi Wife of Late Ram Narayan Singh, Resident of of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna, presently
residing at House No. A/200, P.C.Colony, Opposite Jay Prabha Blood Bank,
P.O.- Lohia Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna.
2. Om Prakash Singh Son of Late Ram Narayan Singh, Resident of of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna, presently
residing at House No. A/200, P.C.Colony, Opposite Jay Prabha Blood Bank,
P.O.- Lohia Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Land Reforms and Rehabilitation, Govt. of Bihar.
3. Divisional Commissioner, Patna Commissionery, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Patna.
5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
6. The Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna.
7. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar.
8. Sanyukta Singh Wife of Late Shyam Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
9. Jay Prakash Son of Late Shyam Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
10. Prashant Kumar Son of Late Shyam Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
11. Kamlesh Singh Son of Late Jag Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
12. Manish Kumar Son of Sri Kamlesh Singh, Resident of Village- Manglichak,
P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
13. Anish Kumar Son of Sri Kamlesh Singh, Resident of Village- Manglichak,
P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
14. Arvind Kumar Son of Late Jag Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
15. Anjani Kumar Son of Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
16. Neeraj Kumar Son of Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
17. Subodh Kumar Son of Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-
Manglichak, P.O.- Suitha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna.
18. Prakash Charlie Sinha Son of Late Dheo Narayan Singh @ Sheo Narayan
Sinha, Resident of 50 Lexington Ave, Suite 154, New York, N.Y.- 10010
Patna High Court CWJC No.4946 of 2023(11) dt.21-04-2026
2/10
19. Gunjan Pinki Sinha @ Gunjan Sinha Daughter of Late Sheo Narayan Sinha,
Resident of Kollwitzstr. 10 Berlin 10405, Germany.
20. Nilam Kumari Wife of Sri Anil Kumar Sinha and Daughter of Late Ram
Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Bhupatipur, P.O.- Delwa, P.S.- Ram
Krishna Nagar, District- Patna- 800020
21. Pratibha Sinha Wife of Sri Rakesh Kumar and Daughter of Late Ram
Narayan Singh, Resident of Flat No. E/4, Nirmal Residency, Near Bank of
India, Babudih, Polytechnic Road, P.S.- Sadar Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad-
828130
22. Juli Kumari Wife of Sri Gautam Kumar and Daughter of Late Ram Narayan
Singh, Resident of Village- Simra, P.O.- Parsa, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District-
Patna- 804453
23. Sanju Kumari Wife of Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha and Daughter of Late Ram
Narayan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Harish Chandra Nagar, P.O.- Dhelwan,
P.S.- Beur, District- Patna.
24. NHAI, through Project Director, P.I.U. Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan (SC-25)
Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, AC to SC-25
For the NHAI : Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp nos. 20-23 : Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate
For the Resp nos. 18&19: Mr. Uday Bhanu Rai, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
11 21-04-2026 Heard Mr. Abinash Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Uday Bhanu Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 18 and 19 duly assisted by Ms. Divya Kiran,
Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, AC to SC-25, Mr. Aditya Nath
Pandey for the respondent nos. 20 and 23 and Ms. Preety
Ranjan, learned counsel representing ‘the NHAI’.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
“(i) for issuance of direction / directions
Patna High Court CWJC No.4946 of 2023(11) dt.21-04-2026
3/10
upon the Respondent 1st set for releasing 25% of
compensation amount with stipulated interest in
to favour of petitioner with respect lands
appertaining to Khata No. 3, Khesra No.250,
Area 0.150731 Acre, Khata No.3, Khesra No.251,
Area 0.04942 Acre, Khata No. 18, Khesra No.256,
Area 0.160615 Acre, Khata No. 18, Khesra
No.257, Area 0.029652 Acre, Khata No. 56,
Khesra No.258, Area 0.400302 Acre, Khata No.
79, Khesra No.259, Area 0.303933 Acre, Khata
No. 18, Khesra No.262, Area 0.264397 Acre,
Khata No. 69, Khesra No.264, Area 0.108724
Acre & Khata No.37, Khesra No.265, Area
0.145789 Acre acquired through Land Acquisition
Case No. 51 of 2013-14 and 43 of 2015-16
situated at Mauza Mahull as well as lands
appertaining to Khata No.488, Kheera No 2745,
Area-0.059304 Acre, Khata No. 240, Khesra No.
2768, Area-0.158144 Acre, Khata No. 240,
Kheara No. 2770, Area-0.170400 Acre, Khata
No.310, Kheera No. 2775, Area-0.020052 Acre,
Khata No.370, Kheara No. 2024, Area-0.0247
Patna High Court CWJC No.4946 of 2023(11) dt.21-04-2026
4/10
Acre, Khata No.175, Khesra No. 2767, Area-
0.284105 Acre, Khata No.528, Kheara No. 2800,
Area 0,400302 Acre, Khata No.480, Khesra No.
2898, Area-0.429954. Aere, Khata No.370,
Khesra No. 2020, Area-0.23005 Acre, Khata
No.385, Kheara No. 2927, Area-0,294049 Acre
acquired under Land Acquisition Case No. 49 of
2013-14 & 44 of 2015-16 situated at Mauza
Suitha for construction of Patna-Gaya-Dobhi
National Highway Road.”
3. The land, as recorded above, was acquired for the
construction of Patna-Gaya-Dobhi National Highway Road
(National Highway-83). The claim of the petitioners is/are
that though the other agnates have received the part of the
compensation amount, it has been denied to them.
4. The record shows that earlier the agnates were
fighting Title Suit No. 12 of 2018 (Omprakash Singh vs.
Prakash Charlee Sinha and others) which culminated into
an order passed on 29.10.2024 wherein excluding the property
(A-200 P.C. Colony Kankarbagh, Patna [Holding No.
149/101/200A]) for which Om Prakash Singh has filed Civil
Misc. No. 796 of 2022, with regard to all other lands which
Patna High Court CWJC No.4946 of 2023(11) dt.21-04-2026
5/10
include the lands in question which has been acquired, the
Court came to the conclusion as follows:
“However, after hearing both the sides,
vide order dated 23.09.2022 the property A-200
P.C. Colony Kankarbagh, Patna, P.S.
Kankarbagh, Holding No. 149/101/200A, (40' x
80 3200 Sq. ft.) had been deleted. The plaintiff has
preferred Civil Misc. No. 796 of 2022 against the
order dated 23.09.2022 of this court which is still
sub-judice.
Thus, the instant judgment is being
passed with respect to all the properties except the
property A-200 P.C. Colony Kankarbagh, Patna,
P.S. Kankarbagh, Holding No. 149/101/200A, (40'
x 80'= 3200 Sq. ft.). The defendant nos. 3 and 4
have specifically admitted through their petition
dated 25.11.2022 that they would have no
objection if the plaintiff is granted relief as
sought. Both the parties have admitted unity of
title and possession with respect to the suit
property.
Thus, the instant suit is hereby decreed
Patna High Court CWJC No.4946 of 2023(11) dt.21-04-2026
6/10
and it is ordered that plaintiff Mr. Om Prakash
Singh, defendant no. 6 Ms. Nilam Kumari,
defendant no. 7 Ms. Pratibha Sinha, defendant no.
8 Ms. Juli Kumari, defendant no. 9 Ms. Sanju
Kumari and defendant no. 10 Ms. Shushila Devi
are jointly entitled to the 1/2 of the suit property
as enumerated in the Schedule I of the plaint.
Further, defendant no. no. 3 Mr. Charli Sinha and
defendant no. 4 Ms. Gunjan Sinha are entitled to
rest 1/2 of the suit property as enumerated in
Schedule 1 of the plaint.
Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear
the cost at their own.
Office is directed to prepare preliminary
decree accordingly.
All pending petitions stand disposed of
being infructuous.
Put up on 04.12.2024 for receipt of
order of the Hon'ble High Court with respect to
Civil Misc. No. 796 of 2022 as well as for further
proceedings.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.4946 of 2023(11) dt.21-04-2026
7/10
5. The aforesaid order which has not been challenged
by any of the parties (plaintiff/defendants) shows that while the
petitioner and his sisters are entitled to half of the share,
Charlie Sinha and the other defendant, Gunjan Sinha are
entitled to the rest half of the share. It is reiterated that the
Civil Misc. No. 796 of 2022 has been preferred for the
property at Kankarbagh, Patna which is not part of the
acquisition which took place for Patna-Gaya-Dobhi road.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
while Charlie Sinha and Gunjan Sinha were paid part of the
amount, rest admittedly, has been not disbursed so far as the
petitioner-widow and son of late Ram Narayan Singh are
concerned. In sum, they have not been given a single penny.
7. Mr. Uday Bhanu Rai representing the respondent
Charlie Sinha and Gunjan Sinha accepts the petitioners version
and submits that the land belongs to them. The Title Suit No.
12 of 2018 has clearly recorded that both the parties are
entitled to half of the share, the matter which is pending before
the competent Court filed by the petitioner relates to a property
at Kankarbagh and nothing to do with the present acquisition.
Though the respondents have provided some amount but the
entire amount is still awaited.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4946 of 2023(11) dt.21-04-2026
8/10
8. On 10.03.2026, this Court directed the petitioner
to approach the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna on
25.03.2026 who shall be taking up the matter further and shall
be filing an affidavit in this regard.
9. Today, on call, the affidavit has come which
include the affidavit filed by the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Patna and in paragraph nos. 6 and 7, it has been
recorded that a Title Partition Suit No. 50 of 2015 is pending
before the learned Sub Judge-1st, Patna and as such, due to the
said dispute, payment could not be made.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned
counsel representing respondent nos. 18 and 19 jointly submit
that Jagnarayan Singh and others have been made party
respondents in the present case, they were accordingly put on
notice on 18.03.2024, have appeared by filing vakalatnama but
are not opposing the prayer of the petitioners.
11. This Court has taken note of the appearance of
the respondents and the contention of the petitioners is/are
true.
12. The further submission is that the Title Suit No.
50 of 2015 relates to different land and it is not the case of the
respondents that so far as the land that has been acquired, they
Patna High Court CWJC No.4946 of 2023(11) dt.21-04-2026
9/10
have not made part payment to Charlie Sinha and Gunjan
Sinha as also other respondents. In fact, Jagnarayan Singh and
family have already received entire compensation amount so
far as the present acquisition is concerned.
13. Having heard the parties and going through the
aforesaid facts/records, it is not the case of the respondent-
State that any objection has been raised by anyone much less
the family of the Jagnarayan Singh before the DLAO, Patna
regarding payment of the compensation amount to the
petitioners/respondent nos. 18 and 19.
14. In that background, the points put forward by the
respondents as put on affidavit by the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Patna about pendency of Title Suit No. 50
of 2015 has to be rejected.
15. The petitioners have clearly made out their case.
They are, as such, entitled to the compensation amount if no
objection is there in the office of the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Patna against the payment that is to be made.
16. In that background, the writ petition stands
disposed of directing the concerned Officer to release the
amount in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the order
passed in Title Suit No. 12 of 2018 (Omprakash Singh vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4946 of 2023(11) dt.21-04-2026
10/10
Prakash Charlie Sinha and Anr.) which has not been
challenged by any of the parties and/or Jagnarayan Singh and
family.
17. Needless to add, the petitioners/respondent nos.
19 and 19 shall be filing an affidavit to the effect that in case it
is found that some other claimants was/were entitled to the
amount, they are ready to face the legal consequences. They
shall be further filing an affidavit that Title Suit No. 50 of 2015
is not related to the present land.
18. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition
stands disposed of. Pending, Interlocutory Application, if any,
also stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…