Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar OjhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The writ petition was disposed, directing the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate for a representation and verification, without granting the writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar Ojha, claimed ownership of 556 acres and 96 decimals of raiyati land in Basarhi Mauza and alleged that the Bihar Rural Development Department constructed a road over his land without his permission or compliance with land acquisition norms. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore possession of the land or pay compensation, and any other appropriate relief. The court observed that the petitioner had not made any formal representation to the authorities regarding his grievance. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate of Sasaram, who is to verify the facts, measure the land, and pass a reasoned order within three months, including compensation if warranted. The writ application was therefore disposed without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of possession or compensation for a road constructed over his raiyati land without following land acquisition procedures.
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore possession or pay compensation, or whether the petitioner must first approach the District Magistrate with a representation.
Subjects
- rai yati land
- land acquisition
- road construction
- writ of mandamus
- compensation
- administrative law
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.772 of 2022
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Ojha Son of Sri Kaushalpati Ojha Resident of Village-
Raghopur, Bihta, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar thrrough the Principal Secretary, Rural Development,
Government of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Sasaram, Rohtas.
4. The Circle Officer, Nauhatta Block, Sasaram, Rohtas.
5. The Station House Officer, Chutia Police Station, Nauhatta, Rohtas.
6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Govind Lal Pandit, Advocate
Mr. Ved Prakash Chandan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, AC to AAG-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
7 10-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned AC to AAG-4 for the State
2. The present writ application has been filed seeking
following relief:-
(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to respondents to restore and release the
physical possession of the land to the petitioner or to
make payment of compensation of the some illegally
acquired land and constructed road over the land of
the petitioner in Basarhi Mauza without following
any norms of land acquisition act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.772 of 2022(7) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
(ii) For issuance of any other appropriate
writ, order or direction for which the petitioner is
entitled to.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner happens to be the owner of the land detailed in
paragraph ‘3’ of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioner containing a total area of 556 acres and
96 decimals. It has further been submitted that a road has been
constructed over the part of the aforesaid land by the Rural
Development Department of Bihar, however, there has been no
permission sought from the petitioner prior to making such
construction. It has next been submitted that the brother of the
petitioner had earlier requested the Circle Officer for a certified
copy of any report wherein such construction has been made,
however, nothing was provided to the petitioner and without any
notice the road has been constructed over the raiyati land of the
petitioner.
4. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that there
is no representation made to any of the authorities on behalf of
the petitioner with regard to his grievances and therefore, in the
interest of justice and taking into account the fact that the case
of the petitioner is that his raiyati land has been utilized for
constructing a road without his permission and no objection, let
Patna High Court CWJC No.772 of 2022(7) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
the petitioner approach the learned District Magistrate, Sasaram
at Rohtas, respondent no.2 with a fresh representation raising all
the grievances with regard to the construction of the road over
his raiyati land.
5. Learned District Magistrate, Sasaram at Rohtas
shall consider his representation along with all the relevant
documents submitted on behalf of the petitioner and after
getting the spot verification and measurement done in the
presence of the parties/authorized persons, shall pass a reasoned
and speaking order within three months from the
date/receipt/production of the order.
6. The present writ application stands disposed off.
7. It goes without saying that if the District
Magistrate, Sasaram at Rohtas, finds that the land of the
petitioner has been utilized for the construction of the road
without his permission, then a suitable compensation shall be
paid to the petitioner in accordance with law.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U
Checking your session…