Patna High Court

Moulu PaswanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 5 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Collector must determine fair compensation for the petitioners' land in accordance with Section 28 of the RFCTLARR Act and decide the award within six weeks.

Summary

The petitioners, a family of a disabled landowner, challenged the classification of their 0.22‑acre plot—containing a house and shop—as agricultural in a notification issued under the RFCTLARR Act for a land‑port project. They alleged no spot inspection was conducted and sought mandamus directing the authorities to determine compensation on a commercial basis. The court noted the petitioners’ objections and the lack of action by the Collector, and referred to the Supreme Court’s principles in M.P. Road Development Corpn. v. Vincent Daniel regarding compensation parameters. It held that the Collector must assess the market value and award compensation per Section 28 of the 2013 Act, including solatium, within six weeks. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Collector to comply.

Issues considered

Whether the land was wrongly categorized as agricultural for acquisition purposes
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on a commercial basis under the RFCTLARR Act
Whether the Collector is obligated to determine the award in accordance with Section 28 of the Act
Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel the authorities to act

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 21(2)
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 11(1), 26, 27, 28, 30, 40

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
mandamus
agricultural vs residential classification
disability
RFCTLARR Act
solatium
market value
spot inspection

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8137 of 2021
======================================================
1.1. Sushila Devi W/o Late Moulu Paswan (Karta of family) Resident of Village-
Ward No. 17, Dakshin Maheshwari, near ICP Gate, P.S.- Jogbani, District-
Araria.
1.2. Shyam Lal Paswan Son of Late Moulu Paswan, Resident of Village- Ward
No. 17, Dakshin Maheshwari, near ICP Gate, P.S.- Jogbani, District- Araria.
1.3. Jitendra Paswan Son of Late Moulu Paswan, Resident of Village- Ward No.
17, Dakshin Maheshwari, near ICP Gate, P.S.- Jogbani, District- Araria.
1.4. Mukesh Paswan Son of late Moulu Paswan, Resident of Village- Ward No.
17, Dakshin Maheshwari, near ICP Gate, P.S.- Jogbani, District- Araria.
1.5. Sita Devi D/o Late Moulu Paswan, W/o Tara Chand Paswan, R/o Indra
Nagar Tikuliya Ward No. 9 Jogavani, Utri Maheshwari, P.S. Jogbani,
District - Araria - 854328.
1.6. Saloni Devi D/o Late Moulu Paswan, W/o Ashok Kumar, Resident of Ward
No. 2, Bangawara, District - Araria- 854312.
1.7. Soni Devi D/o late Moulu Paswan, W/o Vijay Kumar, R/o Lagan Tola,
Kadpura, Kadpura Dalan Katihar, District- Katihar - 854106.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar,.
2. The Collector, Araria, Government of Bihar.
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria.
4. The Circle Officer, Forbisganj, District- Araria.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arif Daula Sidique, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER

7 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent/s.

2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present

writ petition have sought inter alia following relief(s), which is

reproduced hereinafter:
Patna High Court CWJC No.8137 of 2021(7) dt.05-01-2026
2/6

"1. That this writ application is being filed for
the issuance of Writ of MANDAMUS commanding the
respondent authorities to take appropriate and justifiable
decision in respect to the claim of the petitioner regarding
payment of compensation to him on account of acquisition
of his land-cum-residential house vide first stage
notification PR-08816 (Revenue) 2020-21 published in
daily news paper Dainik Jagaran, Bhagalpur Edition dated
03.12.2020 wherein land of petitioner has been categorized
as agricultural as figured at serial number 1 of the
notification, although said land of the petitioner is the only
land on which his residence and shop situates.
AND, the issuance of Writ of MANDAMUS
commanding the respondent authorities to take appropriate
and justifiable decision in respect to the
objection/representation of petitioner for payment of
compensation on commercial basis as the acquired land
comprises the house and shop of petitioner, which is the
only house and source of his livelihood and on account of
acquisition of the same the petitioner is on verge of
becoming homeless.
And, for issuance of appropriate Order or
Orders, Direction or Directions for which the petitioners
may be found entitled to."

3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the

owner and occupier of land appertaining to Plot No. 1291 under

Khata No. 09, Mauza Dakshin Maheswari, Thana No. 175,

measuring 0.22 acre (22 decimals), situated at NH-57A,

corresponding to Municipal Holding No. 278, Ward No. 17,

Jogbani, District Araria, upon which his residential house and a

shop stand, constituting his sole means of livelihood; the said

ownership and possession are supported by land rent and

municipal tax receipts. The petitioner is a person with 75%

permanent disability. On 28.11.2020, the petitioner was served

with a notice dated 28.11.2020 under Section 21(2) of the Land
Patna High Court CWJC No.8137 of 2021(7) dt.05-01-2026
3/6

Acquisition Act, inviting objections in respect of the proposed

acquisition of the said land for construction of the Land Port

Authority of India, ICP, Jogbani. Subsequently, a notification

under Section 11(1) read with the emergency provision under

Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,

bearing Notification No. PR-08816 (Revenue) 2020-21, was

issued and published on 03.12.2020, wherein the petitioner’s

land was shown at Serial No. 1 and wrongly categorized as

agricultural land, despite the existence of his residential house

and shop thereon. The petitioner alleges that no spot enquiry or

physical verification was conducted, as is evident from the

erroneous categorization of another plot as residential, which in

fact is a water-filled pond. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

submitted objections/representations dated 05.12.2020 and

09.12.2020 before the Collector, Araria and the District Land

Acquisition Officer, Araria, along with photographs of his house

and shop; however, no action has been taken till date, nor has

any spot inspection been conducted, giving rise to the present

writ petition.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the

gazette notification dated 03.12.2020 issued under Section 30 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8137 of 2021(7) dt.05-01-2026
4/6

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR)

Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2013"), the land

of the petitioners has been categorized as agricultural land

though it is residential land. The petitioners have filed a detailed

application before the District Collector, Araria on 05.12.2020

for determination of award in accordance with the parameter as

has been enshrined under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act, 2013,

but the said application is pending till date.

5. Law with regard to the process of fixation of

compensation is well settled by the Apex Court in case of M.P.

Road Development Corpn. v. Vincent Daniel, reported in,

(2025) 7 SCC 798, wherein in paragraph nos. 34, 42 and 43, the

court has held as under: -

34. Section 28 sets out the parameters to be
considered by the Collector in determining the
award. It refers to seven factors for computing the
amount payable as compensation. The very first
factor is the market value as determined under
Section 26, and the award amount computed in
accordance with the First and the Second Schedules
to the Acquisition Act, 2013. Other clauses cover
damage sustained due to factors such as loss of
standing crops or trees, severance of land, adverse
effects on other property, loss of income, and costs
or losses from change in residence or place of
business. Losses, if any, bona fide resulting from the
diminution of the profits are also to be accounted
for. The seventh ground is particularly important. It
states that the Collector can take into consideration
any other ground which may be in the interest of
equity, justice and beneficial to the affected families.
This clause will not apply to reduce the market
Patna High Court CWJC No.8137 of 2021(7) dt.05-01-2026
5/6

value of land determined under Section 26, but the
Collector can apply it to enhance the market value
in the interest of equity and justice if it is beneficial
to the affected families.

42. We now proceed to apply the above analysis to
the facts of the present case, which is an acquisition
under the Acquisition Act, 2013. To determine the
compensation, the market value of the land must
first be computed under Section 26 of the
Acquisition Act, 2013. This requires the application
of clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 26(1). Clause
(b) would have no application in the present case as
there are no exemplars in the vicinity to draw a
comparison and arrive at the average sale price in
terms of Explanations 1 and 2 to Section 26(1).
Further, as this acquisition does not involve private
companies or public-private partnerships, clause (c)
would also not apply. Therefore, the highest value
would be the one determined under clause (a) i.e.
the market value specified under the Stamp Act. In
the present case, this value would be the circle rate
fixed for the year 2014-2015 under the Collector's
Guidelines framed under the Stamp Act. The
Commissioner has applied the Collector's
Guidelines by using the rate provided for non-
converted agricultural land. The Commissioner has
further supplemented this amount by accounting for
the assets attached to the land and adding the
solatium payable.

43. In view of the above stated reasons, we hold that
the compensation has been calculated in accordance
with the mandate of the Acquisition Act, 2013. Thus,
no reduction in the amount can be granted by
applying the theory of deduction. It has been left to
the Collector's discretion to make adjustments to the
market value determined through Section 26(1), if
deemed necessary in the opinion of the Collector. In
the facts of the present case, there was no such
formation of opinion by the competent authority or
the Commissioner.

6. In absence of any information, as to whether,

already an award under Section 30 of the Act, 2013 has been

prepared, this Court has not gone into the merits of the right of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8137 of 2021(7) dt.05-01-2026
6/6

the petitioners after having evaluated the decision of the

Collector.

7. The District Collector, Araria, is directed to

consider, as to whether, he has taken action in accordance with

the market value of the land in question and if he has not

already decided the award of solatium, then in that case, he must

give due regard to the manner prescribed under Section 28 of

the Act, 2013 to determine the fair compensation in respect of

the property of the petitioners and dispose of the application

filed on behalf of the petitioners well within a period of six

weeks from the date of communication of this order in

accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the present application stands

disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…