Patna High Court
Ford Hospital and Research Center Private LimitedversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed; no mandamus is issued.
Summary
Ford Hospital and Research Center Private Limited, the petitioner, purchased a 0.149‑acre plot in Mauza Khemnichak in 2007 and later learned that a portion of land in the area was slated for acquisition for the Patna Metro project. The District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO) recorded that the petitioner’s land was not part of the acquisition, a fact later affirmed by the Patna Metro authorities. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to issue a de‑notification, withdraw the acquisition entry, and correct the revenue records, alleging that the entry could jeopardise future transactions. The court examined the DLAO’s order and the clarification from Patna Metro, concluding that the matter had already been decided administratively and that mere apprehension of future harm does not constitute a ground for judicial interference. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and ordered it to be disposed of without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct de‑notification and correction of revenue records when the land in question has been held not to be part of the acquisition.
- Whether apprehension of future adverse effects is a sufficient ground for a writ petition.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- de‑notification
- revenue records
- Patna Metro project
- civil writ jurisdiction
- apprehension
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6470 of 2026
======================================================
Ford Hospital and Research Center Private Limited registered under company
Act having Registration Authority entirely ID U85119BR2007 P5C012958 a
Private Limited Company (en) - YSPA located at New By Pass Road (NH 30)
Khemnichak, Jaganpura, PS Ramkrishna Nagar, District Patna 800027, IN -
BR India through its one of Director namely Dr. Santosh Kumar (M) aged
about years, son of Harendra Kumar, House No G/45 resident of Village P.C.
Colony, Kankarbagh, PS - Kankarbagh District - Patna (Bihar)-800020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretory, Department of Revenue
and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban and House, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Department of Revenue and
Land Reform, Governmnet of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna.
5. The Additional Collector, Patna.
6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
7. The Circle Officer, Circle Phulwarisharif, (Patna).
8. The Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Limited, its Head
Office at Indira Bhawan, West Boring Road, Sri Krishnapuri, Patna, Bihar.
9. The Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Limited, its Head Office at
Indira Bhawan, West Boring Road, Sri Krishnapuri, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 20
Mr. Rajanikant Kumar, AC to GP-20
For Resp. No. 9 : Mrs. Anukriti Jaipuriar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 06-07-2026 Heard Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mrs. Anukriti Jaipuriar representing the Patna
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (for brevity, ‘the Patna Metro’) and
the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred: for the
following relief(s):
“in the nature of mandamus commanding
Patna High Court CWJC No.6470 of 2026(3) dt.06-07-2026
2/4
and directing upon the concerned respondents to
formally issue and publish de-notification/
withdrawal notification in respect of the petitioner's
land and direct correction of revenue records
removing all references to acquisition proceedings
by declaring that continuation of acquisition entry
without acquisition is illegal, arbitrary and un
constitutional upon inaction on the application filed
in this respect and for other relief(s) for which the
petitioners is found entitled to.
3. The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of a piece
of land with following details:
“Khata No. 13
Plot No. 1200
Area 0.149 Acre
Mauza Khemnichak, Jaganpura, Patna”
4. It was purchased from Usha Rani wife of Shri
Prakash Singh (not made party-respondent in the present case) in
the year 2007 and subsequently, has come in a peaceful physical
possession.
5. The contention is that for the Patna Metro Project,
(Khemnichak Metro Station), 0.4153 land was proposed to be
acquired under Mauza-Jaganapur, Thana no. 26, Phulwarisharif,
Patna High Court CWJC No.6470 of 2026(3) dt.06-07-2026
3/4
Patna. Accordingly, notice was issued on 01.08.2025.
6. The petitioner preferred an objection before the
District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna which was taken up and
vide an order dated 02.12.2025, recording that the concerned
representative of ‘the Patna Metro’ supported by the letter no.
6059 dated 01.12.2025 have denied acquisition of the petitioner’s
land observed that the 0.0415 Acre of land which is proposed for
the acquisition do no include the land of Ford Hospital (petitioner
herein).
7. Still aggrieved, the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna on the report
submitted by ‘the Patna Metro’ has recorded that his land is not
part of the acquisition, it may hamper his future deal with regard
to the land as it may be recorded as acquired land by ‘the Patna
Metro’.
9. Ms. Jaipuriyar for ‘the Patna Metro’ submits that
the land of Usha Rani actually is 9 Acres of which a minuscule
0.0415 part has been acquired and already taken in possession by
it. So far as the land of the Ford Hospital (petitioner herein) is
concerned, it was neither the part of the acquisition nor ‘the
Patna Metro’ intends to take the said land. She further submits
that after recording the aforesaid statement made by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6470 of 2026(3) dt.06-07-2026
4/4
representative of ‘the Patna Metro’, the D.L.A.O., Patna has
already decided the matter and unnecessary and without
impleading Usha Rani as party-respondent, the present petition.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that an order has come from the D.L.A.O., Patna, as
recorded above, and when ‘the Patna Metro’ has already
clarified today in Court which is now part of the present order,
reserving his right to agitate the matter, is situation so arise, the
writ petition be disposed of.
11. This Court has already taken note of the entire facts
and have recorded the statements/submissions of ‘the Patna
Metro’ as also have taken note of the order of the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Patna. Apprehension cannot be a basis for
filing a writ petition and/or any ground for the interference by the
Court.
12. Granting liberty to the petitioner to agitate the
matter, if required, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.