Patna High Court
Dilip Narain RoyversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court did not adjudicate the merits but ordered the Collector to determine the acquisition status and pass a reasoned order, thereby disposing the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Dilip Narain Roy, claimed ownership of two ancestral raiyati land parcels in Katihar district and alleged that the State of Bihar had arbitrarily widened the Purnea‑Katihar road, encroaching about 84 decimals of his land without complying with the procedural requirements of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State contended that the land had already been acquired in 1950 under a post‑war development scheme, but failed to provide a clear affirmation of this claim. The High Court examined the submissions and documents, noting the absence of a definitive assertion that the parcels were previously acquired and observing that the petitioner had been paying rent post‑1950. Consequently, the Court directed the Collector of Katihar to examine the matter afresh, hear all stakeholders, and issue a reasoned order within six months. The writ petition was disposed with these directions, without a substantive ruling on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the road‑widening encroachment of the petitioner’s land was undertaken in violation of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
- Whether the land in question had already been lawfully acquired by the State in 1950, thereby negating the petitioner’s claim.
- Whether the High Court can declare the road‑widening unconstitutional and order compensation.
Legislation cited
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 30
Subjects
- land acquisition
- road widening
- RFCTLARR Act
- compensation
- writ petition
- collector
- public works department
- unconstitutional
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5917 of 2015
======================================================
Dilip Narain Roy, son of Late Bijay Narain Roy, Residence: Shiv Mandir
Road, Line Bazar, Purnea, P.S.K. Hat, Sahayak, P.O.-Purnea, District-Purnea,
Pin-854301
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
2. Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Road Construction Department,
Patna.
4. Director of Land Acquisition, Bihar, Patna.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea.
6. Collector, Katihar.
7. Additional Collector, Katihar.
8. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Katihar.
9. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Katihar.
10. District Land Acquisition Officer, Katihar.
11. Circle Officer, Korha, P.S. Korha, District - Katihar.
………. Respondent Ist Set.
12. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Road), Katihar.
13. Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Purnea (N.H. 131A)
…….. Respondents 2nd Set
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jai Krishna Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan representing the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
That the petitioner being,
undisputedly, the owner of his ancestors
RAIYATI LAND, (situated in village Rautara
Thana Korha Thana No.152 R.S. Khata no.
316, recorded in father's name, R.S.Plots
Patna High Court CWJC No.5917 of 2015(5) dt.27-01-2026
2/6
1838 area 2-13 acres and 1839 area 1.81
acres, District-Katihar)is aggrieved with the
arbitrary and Capricious actions of the State
Respondents of widening of pitch road on the
eastern side (Purnea Katihar pitch road)
covering the above said land, measuring 84
decimals, just near-PALTANIA MARKET of
high commercial value,flagrently violating
the mandatory provisions of The Land
Acquisition Laws, seeks gracious indulgence
of this Hon'ble Court, having unfettered
powers for issuance of writ of Mandamus or
other appropriate writ or writs or orders or
direction for the following RELIEFS:-
(i) That "the widening of the road",
as stated above to the extent of 84 dec. of
land be declared thoroughly unconstitutional
and violative of the provisions of Sections 11,
12,15,19,20,21,26,27,29,29 and 30 of
Chapter IV of "The Right to Fair Compen-
sation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Re-habilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
and hence out and out illegal and unsus-
taianable in the eye of law,i.e. void.
(ii) That therefore, the State
Respondents be directed to take resort to the
provisions of the above cited Act for
declaring award and making payment of
reasonable compen-sation along with
interest for irreparable loss caused for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5917 of 2015(5) dt.27-01-2026
3/6
negligent and capricious acts of grabbing
petitioner's land.
3. The matter relates to land in the District of Katihar
and the details are as follows:
Village- Rautara;
Thana- Korha No. 152;
Khata No. - 316;
R.S. Plot No.- 1838 (area- 2.13 acres) and
1839 (area- 1.81 acres) in the district of
Katihar.
4. The case of the petitioner as narrated by learned
Senior Counsel is/are that:
(i) it belongs to the family;
(ii) in the year 2012-13, the respondents
started construction of the road without following
the process of acquisition;
(iii) petitions were preferred before the
respondent no. 6, the Collector, Katihar as also the
respondent no. 12, the Executive Engineer, Public
Works Department, Katihar but without any fruitful
result;
(iv) for the widening of Purnea-Katihar
road, six decimal of land (plot no. 1838 and plot
no. 1839) were encroached. Accordingly, the
petitioner want an order to be passed in
accordance with law.
5. Since there was no response from the other side, the
writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5917 of 2015(5) dt.27-01-2026
4/6
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Assistant
Engineer (Estimating Officer), N.H. Division, Purnea and
learned State Counsel has taken this Court to paragraph 8 to
show that the petitioner has not moved this Court with clean
hands and actually has made misleading statement. Further, the
lands were acquired by the State of Bihar in and around the year
1950 through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka and
Collector, Purnea for Post War Development Scheme. The
details in paragraph 11 records it as Survey Plot Nos. 1016,
1017, 1018, 1019 and 1021.
7. A reply to the counter counter has come and learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a vague statement
has been made by the respondents and there is no specific
averment on the points that the part of the plot no. 1838 and
1839 which belongs to the petitioner were also acquired in the
year 1950. He submits that such a prime land of the petitioner
cannot be brushed aside in the garb of 1950
acquisition/widening of the road and there should have been a
specific statement by the respondents in this regard so that the
same can be rebutted.
8. The further submission is that though the Assistant
Engineer filed the affidavit in the present case, surprisingly, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5917 of 2015(5) dt.27-01-2026
5/6
Collector, Katihar (respondent no. 6) has not filed any affidavit.
He submits that a detailed representation was earlier submitted
in the office of the Collector, Katihar without any response. The
further submission is that if the Collector (who earlier failed to
respond to the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner)
takes up the petition and comes to the conclusion that the land in
question was never acquired in the year 1950 and still needed
for the State cause, naturally, the same has to be acquired strictly
in accordance with law.
9. This Court has gone through the facts of the case,
the submissions of the parties as also the documents that are part
of the record and is satisfied that respondents have failed to
make a clear assertion that the lands which the petitioner claims
to be his land have been acquired in the year 1950.
10. The writ petition also shows that the petitioner is
paying rent and at least one of the receipt shows the date as 15 th
November, 1954 i.e. much after the year 1950.
11. In that background, this Court observes that the
matter has to be considered afresh, parties including the
petitioner and the State respondents/stakeholders need to be
heard, documents to be perused before the respondent no. 6, the
Collector, Katihar decides the matter.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5917 of 2015(5) dt.27-01-2026
6/6
12. Further, if the Collector, Katihar comes to the
conclusion that the two lands of the petitioners were never
acquired and still needed, it has to be acquired only in
accordance with law and by no other means.
13. In that background, the petitioner is allowed to
approach the respondent no. 6, the Collector, Katihar in next
four weeks who shall be noticing all the stake-holders and after
hearing them, will pass a reasoned order preferably within a
period of six months.
14. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.