Patna High Court
Jiramani DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Having received the compensation and not challenged the final award, the petitioner is not entitled to relief under the writ petition, which is therefore dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Jiramani Devi, filed a writ petition seeking certiorari to set aside a title verification order and mandamus directing payment of compensation for land acquired for NH‑98. The NHAI counter‑affidavit disclosed that compensation had already been paid to the petitioner in July 2025 and that the award was final, unchallenged before the arbitrator. The court observed that the petitioner failed to disclose the receipt of compensation and continued to seek relief, constituting suppression and fraud. Since the compensation award is final and the petitioner has not challenged it, she is not entitled to any relief under the writ. The court directed that any grievance regarding other lands not acquired be pursued through a proper petition before the revenue authorities and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition for certiorari and mandamus is maintainable after the petitioner has received compensation and the award is final.
- Whether the petitioner’s non‑disclosure of receipt of compensation amounts to fraud, barring relief.
- Whether the petitioner can claim demarcation of other lands not acquired through the writ petition.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- fraud
- suppression
- demarcation
- revenue authorities
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6072 of 2025
======================================================
Jiramani Devi W/o - Gopal Prasad Mahto R/o Vill- Kishunpur Tola,
Jaganbigha, PS-Amba, Dis - Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Collector, Aurangabad.
2. The District Collector, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad.
3. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad.
4. The land Acquisition officer, Dist - Aurangabad.
5. The Competent Authority cum Deputy Collector, Land Reforms,
Aurangabad, Dist - Aurangabad.
6. The Anchal Adhikari, Kutumba Anchal, Dist - Aurangabad.
7. The Project Director NHAI, Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC-5
For the NHAI : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
: Mr. Shashank Shekhar Kunwar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
7 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, learned counsel for the
petitioner, the State as also Mr. Sriram Krishna representing the
National Highway Authority of India (henceforth for short ‘the
NHAI’
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“i. In the nature of "certiorari" for
setting aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in
the title verification case No. 26/2022-2023 by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6072 of 2025(7) dt.16-03-2026
2/5
Collector, Aurangabad whereby and where under
the raiyati claim of the petitioner has been
rejected.
ii. In the nature of mandamus also
directing and commanding the respondent
authorities for payment of compensation amount to
the petitioner for the land which has been acquired
by the respondents.
iii. For issuance of any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for.”
3. A counter-affidavit has come on behalf of of the
Deputy Manager (T) of ‘the NHAI’ and Mr. Krishna has taken
this Court to paragraph-7 which read as under:
“7. That it may be stated that the Award
of compensation was passed by the Competent
Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) (respondent
no. 5 herein on 03.02.2022 and 03.06.2022. That
none of the land owners including the petitioner
challenged the said Award dated 03.02.2022 and
03.06.2022 before the Arbitrator and therefore the
said Award has attained finality.”
4. The reply to the said paragraph-7 by the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.6072 of 2025(7) dt.16-03-2026
3/5
is vague and there is no direct denial to it.
5. There is another paragraph of ‘the NHAI’ which
shows that the petitioner received the compensation amount in
the month of July 2025 but this fact was never brought to the
notice of Patna High Court despite the matter being heard
repeatedly and has been acknowledged only after the counter-
affidavit came by way of a rejoinder.
6. The said paragraph of the counter-affidavit read as
follows:
“8. That thereafter the payment of due
compensation for the lands of the petitioner herein
that were acquired for the construction of NH-98
was made to the petitioner in the month of July,
2025 and therefore the writ petition filed by the
petitioner has become infructuous. It is most
humbly submitted that even though the petitioner
received the compensation amount in the month of
July 2025, yet the petitioner obtained a status quo
order on 10.10.2025 without divulging this
essential fact to this Hon'ble Court. It is most
humbly submitted that such conduct on the part of
the petitioner deserves to be seriously deprecated
Patna High Court CWJC No.6072 of 2025(7) dt.16-03-2026
4/5
as the petitioner is guilty of suppression and fraud
because the petitioner cannot ask for a direction
for payment of compensation on one hand while on
the other hand receive the compensation amount
without demur and also obtain a status quo order.
It is submitted that such a conduct apart from
being a fraudulent one and one of suppression also
tantamount to blowing hot and cold in the same
breath.”
7. The contention of the petitioner is that in the garb
of the said acquisition, the respondents want to usurp the other
lands also and a clear demarcation has still not been made. She
intends to prefer a proper petition before the Revenue
Authorities in this regard alongwith requisite fee so that her land
vis a vis the acquired land be demarcated.
8. Learned State counsel submits that if such petition
is preferred, the same will be taken to its logical conclusion.
9. This Court has taken note of the entire facts and can
only show its anguish on the point that when the petition was
preferred before this Court and compensation amount was
received by the lady in the month of July 2025, the least that
was expected from her was to file a supplementary affidavit
Patna High Court CWJC No.6072 of 2025(7) dt.16-03-2026
5/5
acknowledging the same. Instead, she waited for the counter-
affidavit and only thereafter, accepted the said fact.
10. Having received the compensation amount and not
challenging the amount which has become final, she is not
entitled to put forward any point relating to the award in
question.
11. However, if there is genuine grievance regarding
her other lands which have not been acquired, as rightly pointed
out by the learned State counsel, she can very well prefer a
proper petition along with requisite fee before the Revenue
authorities who shall be taking the matter to its logical
conclusion and any measurement/demarcation so made, must be
in the presence of all the stake holders including the petitioner.
It is expected that the entire process shall be completed at an
earliest.
12. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…