Patna High Court
Dinesh SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must seek relief under Section 64 of the LARA and therefore the writ of mandamus was not granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Sah, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to declare his land, acquired for the Supaul‑Araria New Railway Line project, as commercial and to pay compensation. The land had been classified as agricultural in the acquisition award, but the petitioner argued that the presence of residential buildings, a school and shops made it non‑agricultural. The State respondents contended that the appropriate remedy lay under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARA). The Court observed that the petitioner should first approach the concerned authority under the statutory provisions of LARA. Consequently, the Court did not grant the writ of mandamus and directed the petitioner to pursue the remedy under Section 64 within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to re‑classify the acquired land as commercial and award compensation
- Whether the petitioner must first avail the statutory remedy under Section 64 of the LARA before approaching the Court
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- mandamus
- commercial classification
- LARA
- Section 64
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7632 of 2023
======================================================
Dinesh Sah son of Late Sukhdeo Sah, Resident of Jadia, Police Station-Jadia,
District-Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Supaul.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul.
5. The District Public Complaint Redressal Officer, Supaul.
6. The Circle Officer, Triveniganj, District-Supaul.
7. Union of India, New Delhi, Construction of Supaul Araria New Rail Line
Pariyojna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raj Kishore Roy (Gp18)
For UOI : Mr. Anwar Karim, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-03-2026
Heard Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Vivekand Singh, learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner has preyed for grant of following
relief:-
“1. That this application is being filed
for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus
direction to respondents authority concern to
pay compensation amount to the petitioner
against the land bearing Khata No.405 Old 1136
New Khesra No.2790 Old 2569 New Area 38
Patna High Court CWJC No.7632 of 2023 dt.10-03-2026
2/3
decimal situated at Mauza -Jadia, Chadar
No.02, Thana No.299, Anchal -Triveniganj,
District-Supaul by declaring the land
commercial in place of agricultural which was
acquitted by the State of Bhar for the purpose of
construction of Supaul Araria New Rail Line
Pariyojna and any other appropriate order,
direction save and except in accordance with
law.”
3. From the Supaul Araria New Railway Line Project,
the land of the petitioner (Khesra No.2790 area 33.200) was
acquired. The Award was prepared putting the land in agricultural
category.
4. Aggrieved, the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
are residential buildings, school, shops and as such it could not be
categorized as agricultural.
6. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the State
respondents duly signed by the District Land Acquisition Officer,
Supual and they have come up with preliminary objection that
under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘LARA), the statutory remedy is available to the
petitioner under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7632 of 2023 dt.10-03-2026
3/3
7. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner
should approach the concerned authority.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
shall take appropriate steps and approaching the concerned
authority in next 8 weeks.
9. If such petition is filed, the Authority shall look into
the matter and after noticing the parties, shall be taking the matter
to its logical conclusion expeditiously in accordance with law
keeping in mind that the writ petition was pending before this
Court for the last three years while dealing with delay in filing the
petition.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
sanjeev/-
Checking your session…