Patna High Court
Lallan Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the District Magistrate‑Collector must consider the petition under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and refer it to LARRA, Gaya, resulting in the disposal of the writ petition.
Summary
Petitioner Lallan Prasad Singh filed a writ petition seeking a direction that the District Magistrate‑Collector of Aurangabad refer his case to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA), Gaya under Section 64(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and that the authority dispose of it within the period prescribed in Section 60(4). The petitioner urged the Court to follow the earlier coordinate‑bench order in Kumar Ohm v. State of Bihar, which had directed the same magistrate to consider the matter under Section 64 and refer it to LARRA. The State counsel raised no objection. The Court noted the earlier order and, finding no contrary circumstance, directed the District Magistrate to act in accordance with Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act and refer the matter to LARRA, Gaya, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate‑Collector should be directed to refer the petitioner's case to LARRA, Gaya under Section 64(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
- Whether the earlier coordinate‑bench order in Kumar Ohm v. State of Bihar is applicable and binding on the present petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- RFCTLARR Act
- Section 64
- Section 60
- LARRA
- Writ petition
- District Magistrate
- Coordination bench precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9659 of 2024
======================================================
Lallan Prasad Singh Son of Subedar Singh, Resident of Village - Pirauta, P.S.-
Nabinagar, District - Aurangabad (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secreatry, Department of Revenue
and Land Reform, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Ltd. (A joint
venture of India Railway and NTPC) its office located at the campus of
BRBCL Khaira, P.S.- NTPC, Khaira Circle Nabinagar, District -
Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha- SC 26
Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC to SC-26
For resp. no. 5 : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Narayan, Adv.
Ms. Deeksha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, learned counsel
for the petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for direction to the authority concerned
particularly to Respondent No. 3 to refer the matter
before LARRA, Gaya under Section 64(1) of the
RTFCLARR Act, 2013 on the application being filed by
the petitioner on merit and the LARA, Gaya be directed
Patna High Court CWJC No.9659 of 2024(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/2
to dispose the same within stipulated period as per
Section 60(4) of the RTFCLARR Act, 2013.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits
that his case be also considered and disposed of in the light of the
order passed by the Coordinate Bench in Kumar Ohm vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 2743 of 2023) dated 12.07.2023.
4. Learned State counsel has no objection to it.
5. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order passed in
Kumar Ohm (supra) read as follows:
“Considering the circumstances, the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad is
directed to consider the case of petitioner under
Section 64 of the RFCTLARRA, 2013 and shall pass
order on merit and shall refer the matter for reference
before LARRA, Gaya.
With this observation and direction, the
present Writ Petition stands disposed off.”
6. In that background, the aforesaid writ petition is also
disposed of in the same term.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…