Patna High Court
Dilip Kumar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the Collector is statutorily obligated to refer objections to the LAARA within thirty days and his failure does not absolve him, but the petitioners may directly approach the LAARA within four weeks.
Summary
The petitioners, four landowners from Madhubani district, filed two applications under Section 64 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, seeking that the Collector refer their objections on compensation and rehabilitation to the appropriate authority (LAARA). The Collector failed to make the required reference within the statutory thirty‑day period. The petitioners approached the Patna High Court seeking a writ directing the Collector and the District Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matters to LAARA and to order payment of compensation at commercial rates. The State argued that the petitioners should themselves move before LAARA after the Collector’s omission. The Court observed that Section 64 imposes a mandatory duty on the Collector to refer within thirty days and that his failure does not relieve him of responsibility, but the petitioners may directly approach LAARA within four weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the Collector’s failure to refer objections under Section 64 of the LAARA is a jurisdictional defect that can be remedied by a court order.
- Whether the petitioners are required to approach the LAARA themselves after the Collector’s omission.
- Whether the court can direct payment of compensation at commercial rates in the present proceedings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- Section 64
- collector
- reference to authority
- writ petition
- LAARA
- rehabilitation and resettlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.808 of 2026
======================================================
1. Dilip Kumar Mahto S/o Gauri Shankar Mahto, Resident of Pandaul Bazar,
P.O. and P.S. Pandaul, District- Madhubani.
2. Amrendra Kumar, S/o Jawahar Lal Mahto, Resident of Pandaul Bazar, P.O.
and P.S. Pandaul, District- Madhubani.
3. Vikram Kumar Singh, Son Jai Prakash Bhuvan, Resident of Village-
Sagarpur, P.S. Sakari, District- Madhubani.
4. Kunal Kumar Singh, Son Jai Prakash Bhuvan, Resident of Village-
Sagarpur, P.S. Sakari, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary/Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue.
2. The Principal Secretary/ Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Land
Reforms and Revenue, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Collector, Madhubani District, Madhubani.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Koshalendra Rai, Adv.
Mr. Nagendra Rai, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-01-2026 Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Kumar Pankaj representing the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
I. Commanding the respondents
and particularly respondent numbers 3 & 4
to refer the objection / petition of the
petitioners dated 8/11/2021 u/s 64 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (Annexure P-7)
Patna High Court CWJC No.808 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
2/5
to the concerned LARA and command the
concerned LARA to decide the same within
fixed time frame as prescribed by this
Hon'ble Court;
II. Commanding the respondents
and particularly respondent numbers 3 and 4
to pay the compensation at commercial rate
of plot no. 5344 , area 2 kattha 10 dhurs of
land in village Dahibhat Madhopur, Thana
no. 127, Anchal Pandaul, District-
Madhubani as may be determined by the
authority after completing all legal
formalities /requirements within period
stipulated by this Court and
III. Grant any other relief deemed
fit and proper
3. The claim of the petitioner is that following
Section 64 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, he preferred two petitions before the
Collector, Madhubani, firstly, in the year 2021 and later, in the
year 2025 but the same has not been referred before the Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (henceforth
for short ‘the LAARA’). Section 64 of the 2013 Act read as
follows:
64. Reference to Authority.-(1)
Any person interested who has not accepted
the award may, by written application to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.808 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
3/5
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,
reqesting 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.808 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
4/5
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.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that if the Collector
fails, the petitioner ought to have moved before ‘the LAARA’
himself.
5. If the contention of the petitioner that twice he
represented the Collector, Madhubani but he failed to refer it to
‘the LAARA’ is correct, it is an unfortunate situation. Section 64
clearly authorizes the Collector to send the petitions preferred
before it before the office to LAARA in thirty days.
6. Though the Act further records that failure to do so,
the litigant should move before ‘the LAARA’ himself/herself,
that cannot absolve the Collector of keeping the files in the
office.
7. Lots of water has flown down the ganges, it would
Patna High Court CWJC No.808 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
5/5
be appropriate that the petitioner straightaway move before ‘the
LAARA’ in next four weeks.
8. If such petition is preferred, the concerned authority
shall look into the matter that twice the petitioner preferred
petition but the Collector, Madhubani failed to refer it to it while
dealing with any limitation in the present case.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…