Patna High Court
Krishna KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and no substantive ratio was rendered on the merits.
Summary
Petitioners Krishna Kumar and Baijnath Prasad filed a writ petition seeking to set aside several orders of various authorities that denied them compensation on the ground that they had not constructed on disputed land and that the Ganga Barrage Act, 1975 was not in existence. They also urged the court to consider documents such as Khatiyan, registered sale deed, and Jamabandi receipt. The petition was later withdrawn by the petitioners' counsel. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, without addressing the substantive issues raised.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders denying compensation on the basis of no construction over disputed land can be set aside
- Whether the alleged non‑existence of the Ganga Barrage Act, 1975 affects the petitioners' claim
- Whether the authorities were required to consider the petitioners' documents (Khatiyan, sale deed, Jamabandi) before passing the orders
Subjects
- withdrawal of writ petition
- public grievance redressal
- land dispute
- compensation
- Ganga Barrage Act
- Khatiyan
- sale deed
- Jamabandi
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5177 of 2026
======================================================
1. Krishna Kumar Son of Late Ram Babu Rai, Resident of Dujra, Devi Asthan
Mukhya Gali, P.S.-Buddha Colony, Distt. - Patna.
2. Baijnath Prasad, Son of Late Ram Babu Rai, Resident of Beside Plot No.
1028, Near Hospito India Buddha Colony, P.S.-Buddha Colony, District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Addl. Chief Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Secretary, Cum Second Appellate Authority, Public Grievance Redressal
Cell, Town Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
5. Managing Director, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation
(BUIDCO), Patna.
6. District Magistrate, Patna.
7. Addl. Collector, Patna.
8. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar.
9. Circle Officer, Patna Sadar.
10. Circle Amin, Patna Sadar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Anirban Kundu, SC-24
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for Setting Aside the order dt. 11.2.2026,
passed by Departmental Urban
Patna High Court CWJC No.5177 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
Development and Housing Department
Govt. of Bihar Cum IInd Appellate Authority,
Public Grievance Redressal Cell, Patna,
whereby and Whereunder it has been held
that, as Petitioners have not raised
construction over disputed land, he was not
the owner of land in question;
(ii) for Setting Aside the Order dt.
26.12.2024, passed by Divisional
Commissioner, Patna Cum First Appellate
Authority, Public Grievance Redressal Cell,
Patna.
(iii) for, Setting Aside order dt. 21.8.2024,
passed by District Public Grievance
Redressal Authority, Patna;
(iv) for holding that, reason (i.e. no
construction over disputed land,) assigned
by Respondents for depriving the
Petitioners, from payment of compensation
is not sustainable in the eye of law;
(v) for holding that, Ganga Barrage Act
1975 is not in existence, as mentioned by
Patna High Court CWJC No.5177 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
Respondents for rejecting the claim of
Petitioners;
(vi) for Commanding and Directing the
Respondents to consider the documents, (i.e.
Khatiyan, Registered Sale Deed, Jamabandi
Receipt) furnished by the Petitioners, and to
pass a reasonable and speaking order in
accordance with law;
(vii) for holding that, without considering
the documents filed by the Petitioners, no
order should have been passed by the
Respondents;
(viii) for any other relief(s) for which
Petitioner is found entitled in the eye of law.
3. Mr.Dhananjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…