Patna High Court
Subhanti DeviversusThe State of Bihar,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The court declined to set aside the award and directed the petitioner to seek relief under Section 64 of the 2013 Act by applying to the Collector.
Summary
Subhanti Devi challenged the acquisition of her 210 sq. m. land, alleging that she was not served notice under Section 5A and that the land, which she claims is of commercial value, was treated as agricultural, resulting in inadequate compensation. She sought to set aside the award dated 02‑09‑2021 by the Arbitrator‑Cum‑Divisional Commissioner and the earlier award of 30‑07‑2018 by the District Land Acquisition Officer, contending that the awards were ex‑parte and ignored her evidence. The High Court held that the grievance pertains to compensation, which is governed by Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and cannot be decided by a writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application with the Collector under Section 64 for reference to the appropriate authority to determine the commercial nature of the land and compensation. The writ petition was consequently disposed, with liberty granted to approach the Collector within three weeks and the matter to be concluded within nine months.
Issues considered
- Whether the award and order of the Arbitrator‑Cum‑Divisional Commissioner can be set aside by a writ petition.
- Whether the petitioner’s grievance regarding inadequate compensation can be entertained under writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioner was denied notice under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- writ jurisdiction
- arbitration
- Section 64
- commercial land
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- notice under Section 5A
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7996 of 2026
======================================================
Subhanti Devi W/o Dinanath Dubey, Resident of Mohalla - Company Saray,
Rauza Road No. - 1, Ward No. - 12, P.S. - Sasaram, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Arbitrator - Cum Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The General Manager - Cum Project Director, National Highway Authority
of India, Project Office, Varanasi.
5. The Project Manager (Technical) National Highway Authority, Project
Office, Varansi.
6. The Competent Authority Cum District land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas at
Sasaram.
7. The Circle Officer, Sheosagar, Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Prabhat, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Singh, SC-21
For the NHAI : Dr. Anand Kumar, AC to SC-21
Ms. Tooba Hera, AC to SC-21
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The defect(s) as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
stands ignored.
3. By filing the present writ petition petitioner has
prayed for two fold reliefs:-
“i) For setting aside the impugned
order dated 11.02.2026 passed in Civil
Misc. No. 62 of 2021 by learned Court
of District Judge-II of Rohtas at
Patna High Court CWJC No.7996 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
2/9
Sasaram where by the award/order
dated 02.09.2021 passed by the
Arbitrator Cum Divisional
Commissioner, Patna Division Patna,
and in relation to the Award dated
30.07.2018 passed by the learned
respondent District Land Acquisition
officer Rohtas at Sasaram in Case No.
17 of 2016-17 has illegally has been
said to be not maintainable and
dismissed; and
ii) Also for setting aside the impugned
Award dated 02.09.2021 passed by the
learned arbitrator cum divisional
commissioner Patna Division against
award dated 30.07.2018 passed by
District Land Acquisition, Rohtas at
Sasaram in Land Acquisition Officer
Case No. - -17 17 of of 2016-17 2016-
17.”
4. Further the petitioner grievance appears to be on
account of acquisition of his land without serving notice to the
petitioner so as to enable him to file objection under Section 5A
of the Act and also he has not been given any opportunity to
place his documentary evidence in support of his claim with
respect to the nature of land in question, which he claims to be
of commercial value. Thus, he submitted that the entire award
vitiates on account of being an outcome of non-application of
mind and since it has been passed without considering the
relevant facts supported with documentary evidence. At this
Patna High Court CWJC No.7996 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
3/9
stage, it is relevant to give the details of the land which has been
the centre of dispute :- 210 Square Meter of land situated in
Mauza - Mor, Thana No. 92, Plot No. 991, Khata No. 58 under
Sheosagar Police Station, Rohtas.
5. It has been pointed out that at the time of
acquisition the petitioner has filed an application on 01.12.2015
before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas praying
therein to prepare the award with respect to the acquired land of
the petitioner, keeping in mind the commercial nature of land,
but that has grossly been ignored by the District Land
Acquisition Officer. Thereafter he claims and alleged the award
to be an ex-parte one which is alleged to have been prepared at
his back without giving proper opportunity of hearing.
6. As evident from the records that the petitioner
assailed the aforesaid award by filing an arbitration case before
the Divisional Commissioner, Patna-cum-Arbitrator vide
Arbitration Case No. 9 of 1990 which has been dismissed on
02.09.2021 without considering any of his grounds and
documents. The aforesaid order of the Divisional Commissioner
was challenged by the petitioner in terms of Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 well within time before
the learned District Judge vide Civil Miscellaneous No. 62 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7996 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
4/9
2021, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 11.02.21
by learned District Judge-II, Rohtas, relying on the R.S. Khatian
prepared in the year 1971 showing the aforesaid land of the
petitioner as agricultural one.
7. Learned counsel for the State specifically points out
that the present writ application is thoroughly misconceived as
the petitioner having availed various forums and having lost his
case from all the forums, have approached this Court under writ
jurisdiction to agitate the disputed question of fact which can
never be decided in the writ jurisdiction.
8. Having heard the argument submitted on behalf of
the respective parties and on perusal of the documents available
on record, it is manifestly evident that main grievance of the
petitioner is with respect to inadequate compensation amount on
account of his land being agricultural in nature in the records of
the revenue authorities, though the petitioner claim his land to
be of commercial nature, but in support thereof, he has not
produced any document in order to persuade and convince the
authorities with respect to the true nature of land. Even in the
entire writ application petitioner has not enclosed any document
showing or evincing that this piece of land on which he is
claiming compensation of the commercial value could be
Patna High Court CWJC No.7996 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
5/9
corroborated.
9. Inadequacy of compensation cannot directly be
agitated before this Court under writ jurisdiction as there has
been a specific statutory provision provided under Section 64 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The
petitioner has a remedy, a statutory one, for waging and
agitating his grievances before the competent authority for
making reference to the appropriate authority under Section 64
of the Act (supra). Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 lays down :-
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7996 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
6/9
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.”
10. Proviso to the Section 64 makes it amply clear
that the 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.
11. At this stage it would be profitable to quote
Section 60 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 :-
“60. Powers of Authority and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7996 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
7/9
procedure before it.-(1) The Authority
shall, for the purposes of its functions
under this Act, shall have the same
powers as are vested in a civil court
under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the
following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and
enforcing the attendance of any
person and examining him on oath.
(b) discovery and
production of any document or other
material object producible as
evidence;
(c) receiving evidence on
affidavits;
(d) requisitioning of any
public record;
(e) issuing commission for
the examination of witnesses;
(f) reviewing its decisions,
directions and orders;
(g) any other matter which
may be prescribed.
(2) The Authority shall have
original jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon every reference made to it under
Section 64.
(3) The Authority shall not
be bound by the procedure laid down
in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the
principles of natural justice and
subject to the other provisions of this
Act and of any rules made thereunder,
the Authority shall have the power to
regulate its own procedure.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7996 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
8/9
(4) The Authority shall,
after receiving reference under
Section 64 and after giving notice of
such reference to all the parties
concerned and after affording
opportunity of hearing to all parties,
dispose of such reference within a
period of six months from the date of
receipt of such reference and make an
award accordingly.
(5) The Authority shall
arrange to deliver copies of the award
to the parties concerned within a
period of fifteen days from the date of
such award.”
12. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner
submits and prays that he may be allowed to approach the
Collector for making reference under Section 64 of the Act
(supra).
13. In this backdrop, the petitioner is given liberty to
file an appropriate application before the concerned Authority
i.e. the Collector, Lakhisarai under Section 64 of the Act (supra)
for making a reference to the appropriate Authority for deciding
the claim of the petitioner with respect to the payment of
compensation for land which he is claiming to be of commercial
in nature.
14. The petitioner may file such an application within
Patna High Court CWJC No.7996 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
9/9
three weeks henceforth supporting his claims with relevant
documents so that the Collector, Lakhisarai may refer the matter
to the appropriate authority for deciding the claim of the
petitioner regarding commercial nature of the land and this
entire process must be concluded within the period of nine
months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this
order.
15. This writ application is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.07.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.