Patna High Court

Md. Mirza GhalibversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court ordered the appropriate authority to pay compensation to the petitioners within three months but refused to stay the construction of the stadium.

Summary

The petitioners, descendants of late Md. Hussain, claimed that their raiyati land of 2.80 acres in Mauza Kanharia was encroached upon for the construction of a football stadium by the Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Limited (BSBCCL) without acquisition or payment of compensation. They sought to quash the order authorising the construction, restrain further work, obtain a stay, and secure compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The respondents argued that one heir had not objected and that BSBCCL lacked jurisdiction to pay compensation. The Court held that the State must pay due compensation within three months but declined to stay the construction, emphasizing the constitutional guarantee under Article 300‑A and the need to follow statutory acquisition procedures. Consequently, the writ application was disposed of with an order directing compensation.

Issues considered

The encroachment of raiyati land for public purpose without acquisition under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Whether compensation is payable under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for the land in question.
The jurisdiction of BSBCCL to make payment of compensation.
Whether a stay of construction of the football stadium should be granted.

Legislation cited

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
rai-yati land
encroachment
football stadium
RFCTLARR Act
Bihar Land Reforms Act
Article 300-A
stay order
construction

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.518 of 2026
======================================================
1. Md. Mirza Ghalib Son of Late Md. Mohsin Raza resident of Village-
Kanharia, Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District-
Purnia.
2. Md. Mobin, Son of Late Shamsul Haque, resident of Village- Kanharia,
Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District- Purnia.
3. Rukhasana, Wife of Late Md. Mohsin Raza resident of Village- Kanharia,
Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District- Purnia.
4. Nikhat Parween, daughter of Late Md. Mohsin Raza, resident of Village-
Kanharia, Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District-
Purnia.
5. Anwari Khatun, Wife of Md. Sajjad, resident of Village- Kanharia,
Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District- Purnia.
6. Saba Parween, Daughter of Late Md. Mohsin Raza, resident of Village-
Kanharia, Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District-
Purnia.
7. Nasrulla Raza @ Nasula Raza, Son of Late Md. Mohsin, resident of Village-
Kanharia, Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District-
Purnia.
8. Sahara Begum, Wife of Md. Mahmood, resident of Village- Kanharia,
Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District- Purnia.
9. Mehar Nigar @ Mehar Parween, daughter of Late Md. Mohsin Raza,
resident of Village- Kanharia, Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.-
Dagarua, District- Purnia.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary of Building Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary,
Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Chief General Manager, Bihar State Building Construction Corporation
Limited, Patna.
4. The Director of Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Limited,
Patna.
5. District Magistrate cum Collector, Purnia, District- Purnia.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer, Purnia.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baisi, Sub-Division- Baisi, District- Purnia.
8. The Circle Officer, Dagarua, District- Purnia.
9. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Baisi, Sub-Division- Baisi, Purnia.
10. SHO of Baisi Police Station, Baisi, Purnia.
11. District Panchayat and Rural Develpoment Officer, Purnia.
Patna High Court CWJC No.518 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
2/9

12. Mukhiya, Panchayat- Majagama, P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District-
Purnia.
13. Naeemuddin, Son of Late Shamsul Haque, resident of village- Kanharia,
P.O.- Kanharia, P.S.- Dagarua, District- Purnia.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammad Helal, Advocate
Mr. Mohammad Tahmeed Helal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, AC to SC(24)
For the BSBCCL : Ms. Rushali, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER

2 22-01-2026 Heard Mr. Mohammad Helal, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar,

learned AC to SC(24) for the State and Ms. Rushali, learned

counsel for the Bihar State Building Construction Corporation

Limited (BSBCCL).

2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present

writ petition have sought inter alia the following relief(s), which

is reproduced hereinafter:-

“1. For quashing of order dated 20-05-2025
issued under memo no.2091 by the respondent
no.3, the Chief General Manager, Bihar State
Building Construction Corporation Limited
Patna whereby and where under the private
raiyati lands of the petitioners have been
encroached for purpose of construction of
Football Stadium with 200meter Athletic Track
without acquisition and payment of
compensation for lands situated at mauza-
Kanharia, Thana no. 438, Khata no.-447, plot
no. 866, area- 2.80 acre, recorded in the name of
Md. Hussain, son of Bhukhan Ali who was the
ancestor of petitioners.
II. Restraint the respondent no. 1 to 9 from
construction of Football Stadium on the lands of
petitioners situated at mauza- Kanharia, Thana
no. 438, Khata no.-447, plot no. 866, area- 2.80
acres.
Patna High Court CWJC No.518 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
3/9

III. During pendency of this writ application stay
the order dated 20-05-2025 issued under memo
no. 2091 by the respondent no.3.
IV. Grant any other relief(s) as petitioners are
entitled in the facts and circumstances stated in
this writ application.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners

submitted that the details of the land of petitioners have been

given in the para-5 of the writ petition, which is as below;

“5. That the land situated at mauza
Kanharia, Thana No. 438, Khata No. 447,
plot no. 866, area-2.80 acres was
Khatiyan/Record of Right in the name of Md.
Hussain, son of Bhukhan Ali, resident of
Village-Kanharia, PS.-Dagarua, District
-Purnia. The lands in question as described
herein before were raiyati land of Md.
Husain. Jamabandi No. 447 of lands in
question was created in the name of Md.
Hussain and rent/malguzari of the land was
regularly paid by Md. Hussain during his
lifetime, and after his death, his heirs/legal
representatives are paying rent/malguzari of
lands in question to the State of Bihar.
recorded in the Continuous.”

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are

descendants of Late Md. Hussain and the information to that

extent has been given in para 8 of the writ petition. The

petitioners are aggrieved by the construction of football stadium

on their land, total area measuring 2.80 Acres, without having

been acquired as per the provision of law as contained in the

Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, as no public notice was

published in accordance with Section 4 of the said Act nor any

objection was invited from the public, particularly in respect of
Patna High Court CWJC No.518 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
4/9

the present petitioners, who are the recorded Raiyat and are

paying required rent to the State Government for which the

petitioners have produced several rent receipts annexed with

present writ petition. He further submitted that the petitioners

are entitled for due compensation in accordance with right to

file the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

(RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 as amended upto date, four times as

per the market value of the land. Learned counsel informs that

the petitioners have already filed a detailed application before

the Collector, Purnia, Circle Officer Dagarua, Purnea and

Member of Parliament on 19.12.2025, 21.12.2025 and

27.12.2025, respectively, but no action has been taken by him

by directing the District Land Acquisition Officer, concerned to

make payment of the required compensation of the petitioners in

lieu of land acquired for the purpose of construction of football

stadium. Learned counsel informs that recently the Bihar State

Building Construction Corporation Limited (BSBCCL) has

proceeded with the construction work in accordance with an

Open e-Tender no.14 of 2025-26 issued under the signature of

General Manager, Bihar State Building Construction

Corporation Limited (BSBCCL).
Patna High Court CWJC No.518 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
5/9

4. Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, learned AC to SC-24

has tendered his appearance on behalf of the State and referring

to the Khatiyan which has been brought on record by way of

Annexure – P/2, submitted that, the petitioner is not entitled for

the due compensation. The land is recorded as football team,

Kanharia, in the name of late Md. Hussain but the learned

counsel has not denied that the petitioners who are the

descendants of the late Md. Hussain are not paying rent to the

Government.

5. Ms. Rushali, learned counsel representing Bihar

State Building Construction Corporation Limited (BSBCCL)

submitted that one of the descendants of Md. Hussain namely

Naeemuddin (Respondent no.13) has given no objection in

respect of his part of share and that will disentitle the petitioners

from restraining the department from construction work as he is

one of the legal heir of late Md. Hussain. She however, admits

that corporation has no jurisdiction to make payment of required

compensation to the petitioners. Learned counsel also gives

information that apart from no objection the said Naeemuddin

(Respondent no. 13) has not registered his part of share in the

name of the Hon’ble Governor of Bihar if he has donated the

said land to the State Government for the purpose of
Patna High Court CWJC No.518 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
6/9

construction of the football stadium.

6. Heard the parties.

7. The petitioners have claimed that they are the

Raiyati land holders and they are descendants of the original

Raiyat, whose name has been recorded in the Khatiyan namely

Late Md. Hussain, the total area measuring 2.80 Acres. The

petitioners’ land have also been acquired for the purpose of

construction of the football stadium for which the BSBCCL has

been authorised to proceed with the construction work and by

publishing e-Tender notice, the Tender has been started in the

name of one Lalit Narayan Mahto as informed by Ms. Raushali,

learned counsel who has received instruction to that effect.

Petitioners are aggrieved that due compensation is required to

be paid as per the revised MVR (Minimum Value Register) in

respect of the land in accordance with the provision of

RFCTLARR Act, 2013. At this stage, I find it proper to quote

the Article 300- A of the Constitution of India, which states that

“No person shall be deprived of his property save by the

authority of law.” The State cannot disposes a citizen of his

property accept in accordance with law and procedure

prescribed. The obligation to pay compensation is not

expressively included in Article 300-A of the Constitution of
Patna High Court CWJC No.518 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
7/9

India can be inferred in that Article. The law in this regard is

well settled by the Apex Court in case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020(2) SCC

569, I find it proper to quote the para-12.1 and 12.2 of the said

judgment, which are inter alia reproduced hereinafter;

“12.1. The appellant was forcibly expropriated of her
property in 1967, when the right to property was a
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of
the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to
private property [State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose,
(1953) 2 SCC 688 : AIR 1954 SC 92] , which could not
be deprived without due process of law and upon just
and fair compensation.
12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental
right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act,
1978, however, it continued to be a human right
[Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] in a welfare State, and a
constitutional right under Article 300-A of the
Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall
be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The
State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in
accordance with the procedure established by law. The
obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly
included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article.
[K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9
SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414]”

8. The Apex Court dealing with the similar facts

where the State is required to make payment of due

compensation in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, reported in

(2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491 has held as under;

“11. There are authorities which state that delay and
laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of
these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant
of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago,
recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational
facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc.
Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay
down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking
remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated,
Patna High Court CWJC No.518 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
8/9

under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at
hand deals with a different scenario altogether. The
functionaries of the State took over possession of the
land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of
law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the
benefit of compensation. The State must either comply
with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or
requisition, or any other permissible statutory
mode.”(emphasis supplied)

9. The proposition of law laid down in the case of

Vidaya Devi (Supra) again reiterated by the Apex Court in the

case of Sukhdutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

& Ors. reported in 2022LiveLaw(SC)347 in which dealing with

the right of a citizen enshrined under Article 300- A held that

due compensation is required to be paid by the reiterating the

law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tukaram Kana

Joshi (Supra). The Apex Court held that the State must comply

with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other

permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State

governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status

beyond what is provided by the Constitution. Similar is the case

in hand, I direct the appropriate authority to consider the

grievances of the petitioners and make payments of due

compensation well within a period of three months from the

date of pronouncement of the order.

10. This Court, at this stage, refrain from stopping

the construction work considering that the State Authorities
Patna High Court CWJC No.518 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
9/9

must abide by the rule of law and must not deny the due

compensation which is required to be paid to the petitioners.

11. In case the petitioners are aggrieved in any

manner they are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in

accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, the present application stands

disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…