Patna High Court
Renu DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the District Magistrate must consider the petitioner's representation, determine any compensation liability, and pass a reasoned order, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Renu Devi, filed a writ petition seeking the removal of illegal structures erected on her Rayati/Khatiyani land and compensation for the unlawful possession by state authorities. She alleged that despite a representation dated 15-11-2025, the District Magistrate failed to act, violating Article 300A of the Constitution. The court examined the applicability of Article 300A and relevant case law, noting that compensation is inferred even though not expressly stated. It directed the District Magistrate to examine the representation, determine any entitlement to compensation, and issue a reasoned order. The petition was ultimately disposed, with the court ordering the magistrate to act accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the State's forcible possession of the petitioner's Rayati land violates Article 300A of the Constitution.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the illegal occupation of her land.
- Whether the court can direct removal of the illegal construction or acquisition of the land under the 2013 land acquisition law.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a rent receipt in her name.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 300A
- right to property
- illegal construction
- land acquisition
- compensation
- Rayati land
- writ petition
- Civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.970 of 2026
======================================================
Renu Devi Wife of Vishwanath Sah, D/o Late Parmeshwar Sah, Resident of
Ward No. 21, Hazipur, P.S.- Khagaria Town, District- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Land and
Revenue, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Khagaria.
3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria.
4. The Block Development Officer, Khagaria.
5. The Deputy Collector, Land and Reforms, Khagaria.
6. The Circle Officer, Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Waliur Rahman, Advocate
Mr. Roshan Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, SC 10
Mr. J. K. Roy, AC to Standing Counsel (10)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. Waliur Rahman, along with Mr. Roshan
Kumar Mishra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr. Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, learned SC 10 for the
State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia the following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“1. That this is an application for issuance
of appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/
directions for following reliefs:
(i) For direction upon the respondent
authorities to consider and act pursuant to the
representation dated 15-11-25 and do the needful for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.970 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/5
redressal of the legitimate claim of petitioner in
accordance with law.
(ii) For direction upon respondents
authority to remove the illegal forcible possession from
the Rayati land of the petitioner and also direct the state
authorities to remove the illegal constructions or to
vacate the same and further handover the peaceful
possession of the land in dispute and structure having in
some portion to the petitioner, where the state themself
grab and encroached upon the Rayati land of the
petitioner.
(iii) For in alternative if it is not possible to
grant the relief no.1, then direct the State Authorities to
acquire the land in view of 2013 land acquisition law
and pay an adequate compensation to the petitioner.
(iv) For that to request to the Hon'ble Court
to take appropriate legal action against the State
Authorities for their illegal and unlawful activities or act
over the Rayati land of the petitioner for which the
petitioner has to face unnecessary harassment and
mental agony.
(v) For also direct to concern authority,
Khagaria to issue rent receipt in the name of the
petitioner after necessary Parimarjan in the portal in
place of her father died subsequently and on the basis of
gift by her father she entitled own the same.
(vi) To pass such other order/ orders which
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
present case.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner
submitted that the petitioner seeks removal of illegal
construction over the Khatiyani/Raiyati land, as described in
para 4 writ application, which is as under;
Jamabandi Khata No. Khesra No. Area
No.
7 156 Gha 5/639 0B-10K-0Dhur
157 Gha 0B-10K-0Dhur
” 5B-0K-0Dhur
” 0B-5K-4Dhur
” 158/637 0B-4K-2Dhur
Patna High Court CWJC No.970 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/5
Total Area 6B-9K-6Dhur
8 156 Gha 5/639 0B-10K-0Dhur
156 Gha 5 0B-10K-0Dhur
158 Gha 1 2B-0K-0Dhur
Total Area 3B-0K-0Dhur
9 74 K 92 1B-05K-
17Dhur
Total Area 1B-05K-
17Dhur
The petitioner for quick removal of illegal
construction has filed a representation before the District
Magistrate, Khagaria for restraing to raise any further structure
over the above described area of plots, however, instead of
taking any action on the representation dated 15.11.2025, the
District Administration is sitting tight over the same, defeating
the petitioner’s right, as enshrined under Article 300 A of the
Constitution of India.
4. The mandate of the Article 300- A of the
Constitution of India states that “No person shall be deprived of
his property save by the authority of law.”
5. The State cannot disposes a citizen of his property
except in accordance with law and procedure prescribed. The
obligation to pay compensation is not expressively included in
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India can be inferred in
that Article. The law in this regard is well settled by the Apex
Patna High Court CWJC No.970 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/5
Court in case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020(2) SCC 569, I find it proper
to quote the para-12.1 and 12.2 of the said judgment, which are
inter alia reproduced hereinafter;
“12.1. The appellant was forcibly expropriated of her
property in 1967, when the right to property was a
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of
the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to
private property [State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose,
(1953) 2 SCC 688 : AIR 1954 SC 92] , which could not
be deprived without due process of law and upon just
and fair compensation.
12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental
right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act,
1978, however, it continued to be a human right
[Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] in a welfare State, and a
constitutional right under Article 300-A of the
Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall
be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The
State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in
accordance with the procedure established by law. The
obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly
included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article.
[K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9
SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414]”
6. Having considered the aforesaid submission made
on behalf of the petitioner, as well as, having perused the
records, the District Magistrate, Khagaria is directed to dispose
of the representation filed by the petitioner after giving specific
finding whether, the petitioner is entitled for any compensation
in respect of the land, in case the record reflect the name of the
petitioner, over which government agency has erected structure,
being on the Khatiyani and Raiyati land of the petitioner as
referred in above paragraph, without any acquisition proceeding
Patna High Court CWJC No.970 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
5/5
in accordance with law then in that case the petitioner becomes
entitled for payment of compensation expeditiously in
accordance with law.
7. In case the petitioner is not entitled for any
compensation, then in that case, the District Magistrate is
directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U
Checking your session…