Patna High Court
Pappu SahversusThe State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners must pursue their grievance under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 (or Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) before the Collector, and therefore the writ application is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners sought to quash a 2026 order of the District Land Acquisition Officer that allegedly revived a 2002 land acquisition proceeding and to restrain the State from dispossessing their ancestral homes. They argued that no compensation had been paid and that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Court examined the procedural history, including earlier SDM and criminal revision orders confirming the petitioners' continued possession, and noted that the DLAO's claim of a published award was unsupported. It held that the writ jurisdiction was inappropriate because the petitioners have a specific statutory remedy under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act (or Section 18 of the 1894 Act) to refer the matter to the Collector. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ application and directed the petitioners to file an application with the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector within four weeks.
Issues considered
- The validity of the 2026 DLAO order reviving the 2002 land acquisition proceeding
- Whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief by way of a writ of mandamus or certiorari
- The appropriate statutory forum for the petitioners to seek redress for non‑payment of compensation
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 11A, 12(2), 17(4), 18, 4, 5A, 6
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 24(2), 51, 64
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- section 64
- RFCTLARR Act
- Section 11A lapse
- writ of mandamus
- quashing order
- right to shelter
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7688 of 2026
======================================================
1. Pappu Sah Son of Late Ramvilas Sah, Resident of Village- Sahdai Buzurg,
P.S. Desari, District- Vaishali, Bihar - 844509.
2. Anurodh Ray Son of Mahendra Rai, Resident of Village Sahdai Buzurg,
Near Kali Mandir, Baluar, P.S.- Desari, District- Vaishali, Bihar 844509.
3. Vindeshwar Ray Son of Chandradeep Rai, Resident of Village- Sahdai
Buzurg, P.S.- Desari, District- Vaishali, Bihar - 844509.
4. Sushil Kumar, Son of Sakal Dev Ray, Resident of Village Sahdai Buzurg,
District- Vaishali, Bihar-844509.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar 800015.
2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, P.O. and P.S.-
Hajipur, District- Vaishali, Bihar 844101.
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur, P.O. and P.S.-
Hajipur, District- Vaishali, Bihar -844101.
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahnar, P.O. and P.S.-Mahnar, District-
Vaishali, Bihar - 844506.
5. The Circle Officer, Sahdai Buzurg, P.O. and P.S.- Sahdai Buzurg, District-
Vaishali, Bihar - 844509.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsh Kaushal, Advocate
Ms. Annapurna Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate
Ms. Anjali Tulsyan, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramashray Roy, A.C. to AAG (9)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ application has been preferred for myriad
reliefs enumerated as hereunder :
“i. For quashing and setting aside
of the illegal, arbitrary, and legally perverse
Impugned Order contained in Memo No.
455/DLAO dated 25.03.2026, passed by the
District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/15
whereby the highly documented and legally
sound representation of the Petitioners was
mechanically rejected in gross violation of
the statutory mandate of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013.
ii. To hold and declare that the
entire land acquisition proceedings initiated
under the defunct Notification dated
01.08.2002, concerning the Petitioners'
ancestral homestead lands situated at
Khesra Nos. 1064, 1084, 1092, and 1091 in
Village SahdaiBuzurg, have absolutely and
automatically lapsed by the rigorous
operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, due to the admitted
failure of the State to take actual physical
possession and pay compensation for over
two decades.
iii. For the issuance of a writ in
the nature of Mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction,
permanently restraining the Respondent
authorities, their men, agents, subordinates,
and assigns from forcefully dispossessing the
Petitioners, demolishing their permanent
residential structures, or in any manner
interfering with their peaceful,
uninterrupted, and continuous physical
possession over the subject lands under the
garb of the lapsed 2002 notification.
iv. For the grant of immediate
interim relief and a strict stay on the
operation, execution, and implementation of
the Impugned Order (Memo No. 455/DLAO
dated 25.03.2026), and further staying any
proposed administrative demolition drive or
coercive action against the Petitioners'
ancestral houses during the pendency of the
present Writ Application, to prevent an
imminent and irreversible miscarriage of
justice.
V. For any other relief(s),
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/15
including the award of exemplary costs, as
this Hon'ble Court may deem highly fit and
proper in the absolute interest of justice,
strict equity, and good conscience.”
3. The petitioners summarize their relief(s) on two counts
viz. (i) no compensation of any kind has been paid to the
petitioners (ii) and the entire acquisition proceedings lapses by
virtue of application of Section 11A which stipulates that an
award with respect to acquisition of any land under Section 11
has to be made within a period of two years from the date of
publication of the declaration and if no such award is made
within that period, then the entire proceedings for the
acquisition of land shall lapse.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
abruptly in late 2018, attempting to maliciously resurrect a 16-
year-old legally dead notification, the local authorities
arbitrarily arrived at the site. These authorities aggressively
threatened to demolish the Petitioners' houses using brute
administrative force to arbitrarily construct a boundary wall.
This sudden and extreme high-handedness shocked the
conscience of the local residents, shattered the peace of the
locality, and created a massive, unwarranted law and order
situation.
5. He further states that as aggrieved by this imminent,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
4/15
lawless, and draconian threat to their fundamental right to
shelter, the Petitioners immediately sought judicial refuge. The
Petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court by filing a
comprehensive writ petition, which was duly registered as
C.W.J.C. No. 17901 of 2018. This petition fundamentally
challenged the colorable exercise of power by the State and
sought the immediate quashing of the hopelessly time-barred
and lapsed acquisition proceedings.
6. He again reiterates that for the sake of absolute clarity
and to establish the exact scope of the previous litigation, the
specific relief prayed for in the aforementioned writ petition is
crucial. The core prayer of the writ petition is quoted herein:
"...for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the
Respondent No.2 not to acquire house of the petitioners in
the name of so called public Road and further issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notification
under section 4,6,17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
with regard to the petitioners land of Khesra No. 1064, 1091
and 1092, and further pleased to... commanding the
respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their
house in question." This prayer explicitly underscores the
Petitioners' consistent legal stance regarding the protection of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
5/15
their residential structures from illegal state expropriation.
7. He further submits that strictly relying on these
irrefutable ground realities and documentary evidence, the Ld.
SDM, Mahnar passed a highly detailed Order dated 10.10.2022.
The Ld. SDM took specific judicial notice of the vulnerable fact
that the Petitioner has absolutely no other alternative land for his
survival or residence. Consequently, balancing the equities, the
Ld. SDM granted a mere 2-foot easementary passage over
the private property for the smooth ingress and egress of the
local Mahadalit community, affirming the Petitioners'
underlying title and possession.
8. He further submits that well-reasoned SDM Order was
subsequently challenged but ultimately upheld in Criminal
Revision No. 93/2023 by the Court of ADJ-VII, Vaishali at
Hajipur, vide Order dated 24.10.2024. These consecutive
judicial orders operate as unimpeachable, contemporaneous
public records conclusively establishing that the physical
possession of the subject lands has continuously remained with
the Petitioners. The existence of these orders utterly and
permanently demolishes the State's fictional, paper-based claim
of having taken physical possession under the urgency clause
back in 2002.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
6/15
9. At last, he vehemently reinforces his argument by
submitting that the Impugned Order is vitiated by manifest
arbitrariness and suffers from several fatal legal and factual
infirmities. The First Infirmity is the DLAO's fabricated
narrative claiming a final Award (No. 2/2002-03) was passed on
30.06.2004, and subsequent notices were issued on 01.07.2004
and 03.12.2016. The Petitioners categorically state that no such
Award was ever legally communicated to them, and the
desperate reliance on a 2016 notice issued precisely to illegally
circumvent the 2013 Actexposes the mala fide and fraudulent
intent of the authorities.
10. The land in question is situated at “Khata No. 687,
Khesra No. 1064; Khata No. 499, Khesra No. 1084; Khata No.
269, Khesra No. 1092; and Khata No. 96, Khesra No. 1091, all
located in Village Sahdai Buzurg, District Vaishali.”
11. The primary grievance of the petitioners appears to be
the notification issued on 01.08.2002 for acquisition of their
lands for constructing SAMPARK SADAK (approach road) in
Village Sahdai Buzurg. This notification appears to have been
issued in view of Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) and thereafter by
invoking Urgency Clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
7/15
respondents dispensed with the mandatory rights of the
petitioners to file objections under Section 5A of the Act,
thereby depriving them of their statutory and legal right to put
up their case in right perspective in the form of an objection
before the competent authority as mandated under law.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that
since the acquisition of the petitioners’ land in 2002, physical
possession of the aforesaid land has not been taken by the
respondent authorities till 2018 and as such the petitioners are
still in possession of their piece of land which these respondent
authorities had acquired in the year 2002 by issuing notification
under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
13. It was further urged that even no compensation was
paid to the petitioners till date since the date of acquisition of
the petitioners’ land, thus, he vehemently argued that this casual
and callous approach of the respondent authorities has caused
the entire proceedings for the aforesaid acquisition of
petitioners’ land to lapse in terms of Section 11A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
14. As evident from the documents available on record,
even prior to the present writ application, the petitioners had
approached this Hon’ble Court for multiple reliefs of identical
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
8/15
nature vide CWJC No. 17901 of 2018, which was disposed of
vide order dated 05.01.2026 with the following directions :
“……...4. With the consent
of the parties, the writ petition is
disposed of allowing the petitioner to
agitate the matter before all the
respondents/appropriate
authority/competent Court.
5. Needless to add that the
document/plea provided by the
petitioner will be taken into
consideration while disposing of the
claim/counter at an earliest.
6. The writ petition is
disposed of with the aforesaid
observation”
15. In compliance thereof, the petitioners filed a
representation before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,
Vaishali at Hajipur for a declaration that the land acquisition
proceedings initiated with respect to the petitioners’ land under
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed in terms
of provisions as contained in Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
16. This application of the petitioners was placed for
consideration before the District Land Acquisition Officer,
Vaishali at Hajipur, who after having heard the parties
concerned, passed an order dated 25.03.2026 rejecting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
9/15
claims of the petitioners categorically stating therein that Land
Acquisition Case No. 02 of 2002-03 was initiated under
Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thereafter,
by invoking Urgency clause as prescribed under Section 17(4)
of the Act having dispensed the rights of petitioners to file
objection under Section 5A of the Act, the notification was duly
published in the newspaper and having complied and completed
all the procedural rigmarole and formalities as mandated in law,
award was duly published on 30th June, 2004.
It has further been noted in the Order that thereafter in
terms of the provision as contained in Section 12 (2) of the Act
(supra), the first notice was issued on 01.07.2004 informing the
Raiyats, whose land has duly been acquired, to receive
compensation. Again a second notice was also issued on 03rd
December, 2016 but the petitioners did not come forward or
approach the respondents for receiving the compensation
amount.
The District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali at
Hajipur has further stated that after due publication of the award
with respect to due acquisition of land in question, the
proceedings initiated vide Land Acquisition No. 2 of 2002-03
has thus concluded and as such the provisions of 11A has no
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
10/15
application at all, in the case at hand. It further appears from the
order dated 25.03.2026 that an award has already been
published much prior to 01.01.2014 and as such Section 24 (2)
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has no
application in the present matter.
17. The entire gamut of factual profile discussed
hereinabove leaves not an iota of doubt that claim of the
petitioners has no sound legal basis. From perusal of the entire
records, averments made in the writ application, arguments
advanced in the Court and order impugned, it appears that for
disputed questions of fact which have been sought to be agitated
in the present writ jurisdiction of this Court, which could not be
decided under the writ jurisdiction without examining all the
records and taking evidence thereon which practically is not
entertainable at this stage in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
18. The issue of entertainability of this writ
application is distinctly different from the maintainability of
writ application. As such, it appears that petitioners have a due
and legitimate remedy available in law by approaching District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur under Section 64
of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
11/15
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for
getting the matter referred to the appropriate authority for
proper adjudication of the issues raised and the rights claimed
by them.
19. On account of compensation amount has not been
paid till date or on the contrary in spite of notice given by the
authority, the petitioner did not turn up to receive the
compensation amount till 2016. Since the award has already
been published in 2004, it would appropriately be governed by
the provision as contained in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 or if the authority so deem fit they also may consider
by referring the matter under Section 64 of the new Act. In the
Act of 1894 under Section 18 which is corresponding to the
Section 64 of the New Act, i.e. Act of 2013, matter is agitated
before the Collector of the district with respect to inadequacy of
compensation amount or non payment of the same, the Collector
may take appropriate decision to refer the matter to the authority
as mentioned in the both Acts in terms of the factual matrix of
the case.
20. There is a provision for agitating grievances before
the Competent Authority for making reference to the Authority
under Section 64 of the ‘Right to Fair Compensation and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
12/15
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 which stipulates that:-
“64. Reference to Authority.-(1) Any
person interested who has not accepted the
award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by
the Collector for the determination of the
Authority, as the case may be, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the
amount of the compensation, the person to
whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation
and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or
the apportionment of the compensation among
the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall,
within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of application, make a reference to the
appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the
Collector fails to make such reference within the
period so specified, the applicant may apply to
the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it
to direct the Collector to make the reference to it
within a period of thirty days."
“(2) The application shall state the
grounds on which objection to the award's
taken:
Provided that every such application
shall be made-
(a) if the person making it was
present or represented before the Collector at
the time when he made his award, within six
weeks from the date of the Collector's award:
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of
the receipt of the notice from the Collector
under Section 21, or within six months from the
date of the Collector's award whichever period
shall first expire:
Provided further that the Collector
may entertain an application after the expiry of
the said period, within a further period of one
year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient
cause for not filing it within the period specified
in the first proviso.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
13/15
21. Proviso to the Section 64 makes it amply clear that the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector is duty bound to make a
reference to the appropriate Authority within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of such an application.
22. Corresponding provision to the aforesaid Section 64
of the new Act, Section 18 of the old Act which is quoted
hereinbelow :
“18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person
interested who has not accepted the award
may, by written application to the Collector,
require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court,
whether his objection be to the measurement
of the land, the amount of the compensation,
the persons to whom it is payable, or the
apportionment of the compensation among
the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on
which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be
made-
(a) if the person making it was present or
represented before the Collector at the time
when he made his award, within six weeks
from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases within six weeks of the
receipt of the notice from the Collector under
Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six
months from the date the Collector's award
whichever period shall first expire.”
21. Further, Section 51 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 categorically
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
14/15
stipulates that :
“51. Establishment of Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority.- The appropriate Government shall,
for the purpose of providing speedy disposal of
disputes relating to land acquisition,
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement,
establish, by notification, one or more
Authorities to be known as "the Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority" to exercise jurisdiction, powers and
authority conferred on it by or under this Act.
(2) The appropriate Government
shall also specify in the notification referred to
in sub-section (1) the areas within which the
Authority may exercise jurisdiction for
entertaining and deciding the references made
to it under Section 64 or applications made by
the applicant under second proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 64.”
23. The learned counsel representing the State did not
dispute the aforesaid contention and fairly admits that in view of
the clear cut and distinct legal provisions as detailed
hereinabove and also keeping in view the bundle of disputed
questions of fact as raised by the petitioners, it would be
plausible and just to allow the petitioners to agitate their
grievances before the appropriate authority in terms of the
statutory provisions of the Act (supra).
24. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners submits and
prays that petitioners may be allowed to approach the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector for making reference under Section
64 of the Act (supra) for redressal of their grievances.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7688 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
15/15
25. In this backdrop, the petitioners are given liberty to
file an appropriate application before the concerned Authority
i.e. the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur
under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 or, alternatively, under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the case may be
because both these provisions corresponding to each other but
only differs in the time of their enactment for making a
reference to the appropriate authority for deciding the claim of
the petitioners with respect to the payment which they are
claiming.
26. The petitioners may file such an application within
four weeks henceforth supporting their claims with relevant
documents so that the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,
Vaishali at Hajipur may refer the matter to the appropriate
authority/the Court for deciding the claim of the petitioners.
27. This writ application stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
28. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed off accordingly.
Saurabh.kr/- (Rana Vikram Singh, J)
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.