Patna High Court
Subash Yadav @ Subhash YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without granting the relief of mandamus for payment of compensation.
Summary
Petitioner Subash Yadav, a 67‑year‑old landowner, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar, the District Land Acquisition Officer and the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to pay compensation for land acquired for a highway widening project. He submitted all required documents after a notice dated 06‑08‑2024 but alleges that no compensation has been paid. The Court noted the long delay, the petitioner’s age, and the absence of any counter‑affidavit from the respondents. Relying on the petitioner’s statements, the Court observed that the matter required a decision but did not issue any specific order for payment. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner under Section 3H(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the acquired land.
Legislation cited
- National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3H(2)
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- mandamus
- National Highways Act
- delay
- senior citizen
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7742 of 2025
======================================================
Subash Yadav @ Subhash Yadav son of Late Saryu Yadav, resident of village-
Gangti, Police Station-Amas, District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Collector, District-Gaya.
2. The District Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Comptent authority, Gaya.
3. The Anchal Adhikari, Amas, District-Gaya.
4. The Revenue Officer-cum-Kanungo, Land Acquisition Office, Gaya.
5. The National Highway Authority of India through its Competent Authority,
National Highway Authority of India, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Varun Krishna Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Venkatesh Kaushik, Advocate
: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, AAG-7
: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-7
For the NHAI : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 05-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
writs directing the respondents to pay the
amount of compensation to the petitioner for the
land acquired by the National Highway
Authority of India bearing Khata No.331K, Plot
Patna High Court CWJC No.7742 of 2025(2) dt.05-05-2026
2/3
No.261 and Plot No.262/1743 situated in
Mauza-Manjhauliya, Anchal-Amas, within the
District of Gaya with suitable interest without
further delay as provided Under Section 3H (2)
of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short
N.H. Act) and/or to grant of any other
relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is legally
entitled in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to
the notice issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Gaya
Ji vide notice dated 06.08.2024 (relating to National Highway
widening), all the documents have been presented but still the
decision is being awaited.
4. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for
‘the NHAI’ submits that if the matter is still pending, it will be
taken to its logical conclusion.
5. Having heard the parties, this Court has taken note
of the fact that the petitioner is 67 years old, is agitating the
matter for long, the notice shows that the process was already
undertaken in the year 2024 and pursuant thereto, the case of the
petitioner as presented by learned Senior Counsel is that they
Patna High Court CWJC No.7742 of 2025(2) dt.05-05-2026
3/3
have submitted all the documents, in that background, it is high
time that a decision comes and if the petitioner is entitled to the
compensation, the same is released immediately.
6. This order has been passed in the backdrop of the
fact that there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the
respondents and the Court has relied on the statements put
forward by the learned Senior Counsel that the payment has still
not paid.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…