Patna High Court
Paras Nath Gupta and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court disposed the writ petition, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the appropriate authority under section 64 of the Act and declining to issue a mandamus for compensation.
Summary
Paras Nath Gupta and the estate of the late Nandlal Sah filed a writ petition against the State of Bihar and its land acquisition officials seeking a mandamus directing payment of compensation for land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners demanded that the market value of the land be fixed as of 1 January 2014, an additional 75% compensation under section 40(5) for emergent acquisition, interest at 12% per annum under section 30(3), and further interest under section 80. The respondents contended that the compensation had already been paid and that the petitioners could seek redress under section 64 of the Act before the appropriate authority. The petitioners filed a rejoinder disputing the respondents' facts but also sought liberty to approach the authority under section 64. The court allowed an interlocutory application to substitute the deceased petitioner with his legal representative, Daulat Kumar Gupta. It then observed that the writ petition could be pursued through the statutory remedy of section 64 and therefore disposed of the writ petition without granting the reliefs claimed. The decision emphasizes the primacy of the statutory remedial mechanism over judicial intervention in compensation matters under the Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a mandamus directing payment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether the petitioners may approach the authority under section 64 of the Act for redress instead of seeking judicial relief.
- Whether the substitution of a deceased petitioner with his legal representative is permissible.
Legislation cited
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 40, 64, 69, 80
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- mandamus
- section 64
- substitution of parties
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- interest
- emergent acquisition
- statutory remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5916 of 2017
======================================================
1. Paras Nath Gupta and Anr S/o Sri Radhey Kishun Sah, Resident of Village-
Gurkimandi, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna.
2. Nandlal Sah, S/o Late Nanhak Sah, Resident of Village- Choti Pahari, P.S.-
Agamkuan, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajatshatru, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sajid Salim Khan-Sc25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 13-01-2026 I.A. No. 02 of 2024:
2. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application has been
preferred for substituting the petitioner no.2, Nandlal Sah who
died on 26.12.2019 with the legal representative as recorded in
para-03 as follows:
“Daulat Kumar Gupta, Age about 32
years, Male, S/o late Nandlal Sah,
resident of village-Choti Pahari, P.S.
Agamkuan, District-Patna.
3. There is no opposition from the other side.
4. In that background, I.A. No. 02 of 2024 is allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5916 of 2017(3) dt.13-01-2026
2/4
5. Let the name of Daulat Kumar Gupta, son S/o late
Nandlal Sah be recorded in the writ petition in place of the
petitioner no.2, Nandlal Sah who died on 26.12.2019.
6. I.A. No. 02 of 2024 is allowed.
C.W.J.C. No. 5916 of 2017:
7. Heard Ajatshatru, learned counsel for the petitioner
and the State.
8. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) to issue a writ in the nature of
MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI or any other
writ or direction commanding the
respondents to pay the compensation of
acquired land following the provisions
contained in section 24 to 30, 40, 69 & 80 of
Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
[Here in after mentioned as "The Act").
Further the petitioners prays for direction to
respondents to enumerate the market value
of land as on the date of implementation of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5916 of 2017(3) dt.13-01-2026
3/4
"the Act" i.e. 1.1.2014 as mentioned in the
letter dated 26.10.2015 & 4.12.2015 [Ann-6
& 7], further prayer to pay the additional
compensation of 75 % as per section 40 (5)
of the Act as well as letter dated 7.12.2016
[Ann-9] because the land has been acquired
under emergent provisions, further the
petitioners prays for direction to pay the
amount @12% per annum as contained in
section 30 (3) of the Act, further prayer for
direction to respondents to pay the interest
u/s 80 of the Act and be further pleased to
issue any further direction/directions to the
respondents in view of the facts and
circumstances of this case.
9. The counter affidavit has come on behalf of the
respondents, according to which, alongwith the 12% additional
amount, the payment has been made. The counter affidavit
further states that the petitioner has remedy to move before the
appropriate authority under section 64 of the Act.
10. By filing the rejoinder petition, the petitioner has
disputed the facts recorded by the respondents in the counter
Patna High Court CWJC No.5916 of 2017(3) dt.13-01-2026
4/4
affidavit. However, the submission is that since stand has been
taken the and forum is available, the petitioner be granted
liberty to approach the concerned authority under section 64 of
the Act.
11. Granting said liberty and recording the fact that
the writ petition was pending before this Court since the year
2017 and as such any petition filed within a period of eight
weeks has to be taken into account while dealing with the
limitation petition.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…