Patna High Court
Kamdev YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition is disposed in the same terms as the Kumar Ohm order, and no fresh mandamus is granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Kamdev Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to refer his case to the competent court for enhancement of compensation under Section 64 of the RFCTLARRA, 2013, invoking the precedent set in Kumar Ohm v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 2743 of 2023). The petitioner argued that his case should be decided in line with the earlier order which directed the District Magistrate‑Collector of Aurangabad to consider the matter and refer it to the LARRA, Gaya. The State counsel raised no objection to applying the earlier decision. The Court examined the earlier judgment and found no reason to depart from it, noting that the same factual matrix and legal issue of compensation parity were involved. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present writ petition in the same terms as the Kumar Ohm order, effectively denying a fresh mandamus and directing reliance on the prior direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to refer his case for enhanced compensation under Section 64 of the RFCTLARRA, 2013.
- Whether the earlier order in Kumar Ohm v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 2743 of 2023) is binding on the present petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- Section 64
- RFCTLARRA
- parity and consistency
- LARRA
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9782 of 2026
======================================================
Kamdev Yadav son of Parmeshwar Yadav, resident of Village Narayanpur, PS
NTPC Khaira, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Directorate of Land Acquisition Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Aurangabad.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Bhartiya Rail Bijalee Company Ltd. (A Joint
Venture of India Railway and N.T.P.C.) its office located at the campus of
BRBCHI Khaira, P.S.- N.T.P.C. Khaira Circle- Nabinagar, District-
Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (9)
For the BRBCL : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2026 Heard Mr. Aniruddh Kumar Verma, learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned State counsel.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“for issuance of writ of mandamus
commanding and directing to the concerned
authority to refer the case before the Competent
Court on the point of enhancement of
compensation in light of the order dated
12.07.2023 passed in CWJC No.2743 of 2023
and several other cases that have been referred
to the Competent Court on the ground of parity
Patna High Court CWJC No.9782 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/2
and consistency.”
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)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.