Patna High Court
Brajesh Chandra MishraversusThe Regional Officer,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that although the statutory 60‑day period had elapsed, the petitioner may be granted a further limited extension to vacate the land by 31 July 2026, failing which possession may be taken by the respondents.
Summary
The petitioner, Brajesh Chandra Mishra, owned a small parcel of land on which he operated a Mahindra automobile workshop and had received compensation after the land was acquired for the Green Field Expressway project. Despite receiving the award, he failed to vacate the land within the 48‑hour notice issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, prompting a writ petition seeking quashing of the notice and a mandamus directing the respondents to observe the statutory 60‑day period under the National Highways Act. The respondents argued that the project was delayed and the petitioner should have vacated promptly, but the petitioner contended that the required time to dismantle his workshop justified an extension. The court noted the statutory requirement had lapsed but, considering the petitioner’s undertaking and the practical difficulty of removing the workshop, granted an extension until 31 July 2026 to vacate. It warned that failure to comply would permit the respondents to take possession from 1 August 2026 and recover costs for illegal occupation. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief against the 48‑hour vacate notice issued by the acquisition officer.
- Whether the statutory 60‑day period under Section 3‑E‑(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, was applicable and complied with.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to grant additional time for vacating the land.
- Whether the court may extend the time for vacating the acquired land despite the lapse of the statutory period.
Legislation cited
- National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3-E-(1)
Subjects
- land acquisition
- National Highways Act
- mandamus
- civil writ jurisdiction
- compensation
- extension of time
- possession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7702 of 2026
======================================================
Brajesh Chandra Mishra Son of Shri Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Resident of
Ravi Kunj, Navratan Hata, Purnia, Bihar, P.S-Khajanchi Hat, Purnia, Bihar,
Pincode- 854301.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Regional Officer, Regional Office, National Highways Authority of
India, Patna.
2. The Project Manager, NHAI, Kishanganj- Purnea.
3. The State of Bihar Through Commissioner, Purnea.
4. The State of Bihar Through District Magistrate, Kishanganj.
5. The Competent Officer-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Kishanganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saurabh Bishwambhar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (07)
For the NHAI : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shandilya, Advocate
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ankita Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 07-07-2026 Heard Mr. Saurabh Bishwamber, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. Vivek Prasad for the State and Miss Ankita
Kumari for National Highway Authority of India (henceforth for
short ‘the NHAI’).
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
“A. Writ in the nature of Ceritorari or
any other appropriate writ/s, order/s direction/s
quashing the following:-
(I) Notice dated 09/05/2026 vide
Reference No-1674 issued by District Land
Patna High Court CWJC No.7702 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
2/5
Acquisition Officer, Kishanganj stating interalia
for vacating the land bearing Khesara No-3386
admeasuring 0.1370 decimil to be vacated in 48
hours
B. A writ in the nature of MANDAMUS
or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s direction/s
commanding the Respondents for the following:-
(I) To direct the respondent No-3 and 4
to act in light of section 3-E-(1) Of National
Highway Act, 1956
(II) To accept and adopt a technic of
humanitarian ground in vacating the aforesaid
land as per the statutory limitation.
(III) To direct the respondents in not
creating hindrance within a period of 60 days for
evacuating the land by the petitioner.
C. To any other relief/s to which the
petitioner is found entitled to”.
3. The matter relates to the construction of Green
Field Expressway between Kishanganj-Bahadurganj
Section, Package-3 which led to Land Acquisition Case No.
22-26-2022.
4. The land details of the petitioner is at para 4 of the
petition and read as under:
“Khata number 63;
Khesra 3386 (0.1370 decimal);
Patna High Court CWJC No.7702 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
3/5
Thana no. 56 Mauza-Singhari;
District- Kishanganj.”
5. The petitioner is running a Mahindra Automobile
Shop and pursuant to the notices, it has been accepted that the
compensation amount has been received. So far as
categorization of land is concerned, the Arbitrator-cum-
Divisional Commissioner of Purnea division has already
decided it in his favour on 08.04.2026/10.04.2026 and to his
knowledge, the respondents have not challenged it.
6. Once the acquisition process came to an end, the
natural recourse for the petitioner was to leave the place so that
the project moves without any obstruction. However, as he
failed to clear the land, vide memo number 1674 dated
09.05.2026, the petitioner and all those who have not vacated
the land were directed to leave the required places within a
period of 48 hours, else appropriate steps shall be taken.
7. Aggrieved, the present petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
mandatory provision of 60 days has not been followed and it
being a workshop, removal of the entire machinery and structure
will take some time. However, he concedes that the notice is
dated 09.05.2026 and when this matter is being argued on
Patna High Court CWJC No.7702 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
4/5
07.07.2026, the respondents have not resorted to coercive
measure. He further acknowledges that 60 days period that the
petitioner wanted also stand completed.
9. The submission is that some more time be granted
and considering the importance of the project for which the
acquisition has been made, the petitioner is ready to vacate the
same.
10. Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned State Counsel submits
that the project is of the year 2023, it is already getting late,
payments have been made. The petitioner knowing very well
that they have to leave once they received the compensation
amount should have taken appropriate steps. Instead, the writ
petition. He further submits that even the contention that 60
days time has not been granted now has come to an end.
However, he submits that if the petitioner is ready to vacate at
an earliest, some more time can be extended.
11. Learned counsel for ‘the NHAI’ echoes the same
sentiment as expressed by the learned State Counsel.
12. This Court has recorded the entire facts of the case
and can only observe that only due to these delay tactics by the
landholders after the received award amount, the projects in the
State of Bihar fails to start or get completed in time.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7702 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
5/5
13. However, considering the natural difficulty that
the petitioner has presented with the help of the photographs
that the workshop needs some time for its complete removal, on
his own undertaking that it will be vacated by 31st of July
2026, this Court allows the petitioner to take steps and see to it
that the entire machinery of the workshop is/are removed at an
earliest and latest by 31st of July 2026.
15. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to abide
by the undertaking given to the Court, the respondents shall be
free to take immediate steps for taking possession of the land in
question effective 1st of August, 2026. The respondents shall
also be free to realise the cost on account of illegal occupation
of this acquired land.
16. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Sanny/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.