Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the matters raised are civil disputes beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction and must be pursued before the Collector or a civil court.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Sharma, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash a letter authorising demolition of his three‑storey hotel under Section 26(7) of the Land Highways Act, 2002, mandamus for compensation of Rs 6,036,007 and for removal of alleged encroachment, alternatively acquisition of the land under the LARR Act, 2013. The Court noted that a joint measurement of the disputed plots (khata 434, khetra 1805‑1806) had been conducted and the alignment was confirmed, but the petitioner refused to accept the measurement. The State argued that acquisition and compensation had been effected and any further dispute should be addressed before the Collector or a civil court. The Court held that the conflicting claims could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate administrative or civil forum. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, leaving interim orders merged with the final order.
Issues considered
- Whether the letter authorising demolition under Section 26(7) of the Land Highways Act, 2002 can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation for the demolition of the petitioner’s hotel.
- Whether the respondents can be directed by mandamus to remove the alleged encroachment or acquire the land under the LARR Act, 2013.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition concerning land‑acquisition disputes.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- illegal demolition
- writ jurisdiction
- certiorari
- mandamus
- compensation
- encroachment
- NHAI
- Section 26(7) Land Highways Act
- LARR Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5673 of 2025
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Yashwant Kumar Sharma Resident of Ward No.-
16, Balu Ghat, Saraiya, Sadullahpur, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate (East), Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Highway Administrator, National Highways Authority of India, Project
Implementation Unit, Darbhanga.
8. The Circle Officer, Mushari, Muzaffarpur.
9. M/s Dhariwal Buildtech Ltd., Road Contractor, Regional Office, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Prashant Pratap, GP-02
For the NHAI : Mr. Gaurav Govinda, Advocate
Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
6 30-03-2026 Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned GP-02 as also
Mr. Gaurav Govind, learned counsel for the NHAI.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter
No. 1432 dated 26.11.2024 issued under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5673 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
2/7
signature of respondent no.7 whereby and
whereunder without measurement and
without holding unauthorized construction
on land bearing Khata No. 434, Plot No.
1805, 1806 total area 20 decimal upon
which three storeys Hotel was situated which
has been forcefully demolished by the
respondent no.7 taking the shelter of section
26 (7) of Land Highways Act, 2002 in which
there is provision to remove unauthorized
construction without giving any notice;
(ii) for Issuance of an appropriate wilt in the
nature of Mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents authorities to pay
compensation for demolishing three storeys
Hotel of the petitioner amounting Rs.
06,036,007/-;
(iii) for Issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of Mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents authorities to
remove the encroachment which has been
forcefully taken by demolishing the three
Patna High Court CWJC No.5673 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
3/7
storeys hotel of the petitioner and in case the
respondent NHAi is in need of raiyati land of
the petitioner the same may be acquired
under the provision contemplated in Right to
Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (LARR Act) and pay compensation
as per prevailing rule;
(iv) for issuance of any other appropriate
writ/write. order/orders, direction!
directions for this the writ petitioner shall be
found entitled under the fact and
circumstances of the case,
3. The matter relates to a piece of land having the
following details:
khata no. 434
khesra no. 1805 (8 decimals) under
Ahiyapur Circle in the district of
Muzaffarpur.
4. The claim is that in the garb of acquisition of land
for National Highway-57 (0.00-310 kilo meters) (Muzaffarpur-
Purnea Section) though plot no. 1805 and 1806 having 0.14
Patna High Court CWJC No.5673 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
4/7
decimal and 0.10 decimal respectively which belong to his
vendor, Rajesh Sinha, payments have been made, illegally, his
land which was purchased from the same vendor has been
usurped and the hotel running on it has been demolished.
5. Earlier, the coordinate bench of this Court vide an
order dated 02.02.2026 directed the State respondents, ‘the
NHAI’ as also the petitioner to present themselves on the site
alongwith their respective ‘Amins’ and the plot no. 1805 and
1806 be again measured.
6. Subsequent thereto, a supplementary counter
affidavit has come on behalf of respondent no.3 and 5 to 8 duly
singed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur
and the learned State counsel has taken this Court to paragraphs
12 to 14 which read as follows:
12. That the said measurement was
carried out transparently and in the
presence of the following persons:
(i) Amin Shri Kumar Shanu from the
District Land Acquisition Office,
Muzaffarpur;
(ii) Contract Amin Shri Amarjeet
Paswan from Anchal Office,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5673 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
5/7
Bochaha;
(iii) Amin Shri Niranjan Kumar Singh
from National Highways Authority of
India, Muzaffarpur;
(iv) The petitioner, Shri Pankaj
Kumar Sharma, along with his own
Amin.
13. that during the said joint
measurement, it was categorically
found that the previously marked
alignment and the acquired area were
entirely correct, on the basis of which
the State Government carved out the
acquired land to the extent of 5.93
decimals and handed over the same
to the NHAI;
14. that despite the findings of the
joint measurement team confirming
the correct alignment, the petitioner
and his Amin expressed their
disagreement with the measurement.
The petitioner and his Amin refused
Patna High Court CWJC No.5673 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
6/7
to accept the alignment marked by the
measurement team and deliberately
declined to sign the measurement
proceeding.
7. The connecting Annexures and the photograph
have also been attached in support of the said contention of
measurement that took place on 23.02.2026.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the land has been measured, there is no clarity on
whether the land of the petitioner has been taken over/illegal
demolition took place or not.
9. Learned State counsel has pointed out that the
acquisition has been made, compensation paid and the
respondents have not moved beyond that and if any
encroachment found, only that part has been removed.
10. He further submits that it is the case of the
petitioner that to save the land of an ex-MLA, all these
demolition have taken place. However, neither the ex-MLA has
been named nor impleaded as party respondents and as such the
said contention, has to be rejected and this petition is fit to be
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
11. This Court has gone through the facts of the case
Patna High Court CWJC No.5673 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
7/7
as also the measurement report/submissions of the parties. The
respondents have clarified that they have limited themselves to
the acquisition so made so far as the Khesra nos. 1805 and 1806
are concerned.
12. Conflicting claims have been put forward which
cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction.
13. The petitioner has option either to move before
the Collector, Muzaffarpur alongwith all the supporting
documents who can summon the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Muzaffarpur as also Officials of ‘the NHAI’ to take a
decision in the matter. Alternatively, if his case is that to save
the skin of an ex-MLA, all these demolition have taken place,
can very well knock the doors of the competent Civil Court so
that once and for all, the disputed questions are settled.
14. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation. All the interim orders stand merged with the final
order.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…