Patna High Court
Gopal Prasad YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without granting any relief, observing that no actionable step had been taken by the respondents and allowing the petitioner to approach the Court again if the situation warrants.
Summary
The petitioner, Gopal Prasad Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus, compensation, quashing of a 2011 acquisition notification, and release of his land alleged to have been acquired for a police line under the urgency clause of the Bihar Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He contended that the urgency clause was misused, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation Act, and that the land lay outside the required alignment, warranting its release under Section 48 of the 1894 Act. The State argued that no concrete steps had been taken to take possession or pay compensation, and that the documents relied upon were dated 2011‑2013, rendering the petition premature. The Court noted the absence of any actionable conduct by the respondents and, while granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Court if circumstances change, dismissed the petition without granting any of the reliefs sought. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the acquisition of the petitioner’s land under the urgency clause of the Bihar Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was valid.
- Whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether the land can be released under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs 3.75 Lakhs per decimal.
- Whether the 2011 notification (Memo No. 1584) should be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 17(1), 17(4), 48, 5
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 24(2), 31
Subjects
- land acquisition
- urgency clause
- compensation
- rehabilitation
- mandamus
- quashing notification
- Section 48
- Section 24(2)
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9815 of 2026
======================================================
Gopal Prasad Yadav Son of Late Kamleshwari Prasad Yadav, Residing Azad
Nagar, Near Chaiti Durga Chowk, Ward No.9, P.S. and District-Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reform Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform, Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Madhepura.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhepura.
5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhepura.
6. The Circle Officer, Madhepura, District-Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General (9)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus for direction to the respondents for
considering the case of the petitioner for
rehabilitation in lieu of the land acquired in
place of the others within the District of
Madhepura of the same very cost of the land.
(ii) for further issue direction to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9815 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/6
respondents pay the compensation of the
acquired land 3.75 Lakhs per decimal as
running in the aforesaid area.
(iii) for further quashing notification
contained Memo No.1584 dated 02.09.2011
issued by the Department of Revenue and Land
Reforms (Directorate of Land Acquisition),
Government of Bihar, Patna so far it relates to
the petitioner whereby and whereunder the
Government has notified the acquisition of the
land of the petitioner along with others land who
are mostly bonafide purchasers including
Khatiyani Raiyats under the urgency clause for
construction of police line under section 17 (1)
of the Bihar Amendment in the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1894)
and thereby illegally dispensing with the
mandate of Section 5 of the Act, 1894 under
section 17 (4) of the Act, 1894 even though the
possession of the land in question has yet not
been taken after lapse of issued by the
Department of Revenue and Land Reforms
Patna High Court CWJC No.9815 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
3/6
(Directorate of Land Acquisition), Government
of Bihar, Patna so far it relates to the petitioner
whereby and whereunder the Government has
notified the acquisition of the land of the
petitioner along with others land who are mostly
bonafide purchasers including Khatiyani Raiyats
under the urgency clause for construction of
police line under section 17 (1) of the Bihar
Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as Act, 1894) and thereby
illegally dispensing with the mandate of Section
5 of the Act, 1894 under section 17 (4) of the Act,
1894 even though the possession of the land in
question has yet not been taken after lapse of 13
years making the application of urgency clause
by the state a nullity and an illegality.13 years
making the application of urgency clause by the
state a nullity and an illegality.
(iv) for a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings initiated vide the Memo
No. 1580 dated 02.09.2011 has lapsed in terms
of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Patna High Court CWJC No.9815 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
4/6
Compensation and Transparency and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act, 2013) as neither possession of the
land in question has been taken as of yet nor the
compensation in lieu of the said acquisition has
been paid to the petitioners as also the said
compensation has also not been deposited before
any court in terms of section 31 of the Act, 1894.
(v) for a declaration that the land in
question may be released in terms of Section 48
of the Act, 1894 as the State has already got the
proposed quantum of land required for the
construction of the police line and the land in
question is not in the alignment and from the
map it is apparent that it seems outside the
boundary of the land acquired for the purpose of
construction of police line.
(vi) for a direction upon the
respondents to release the land in question from
the acquisition proceedings.
(vii) for a declaration that the news
paper reports and the communications of higher
Patna High Court CWJC No.9815 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
5/6
officials of the Government of Bihar as also the
inaction on the part of the State to take
possession and to pay compensation for more
than a decade have paved way for legitimate
expectation to the petitioner, that his land shall
not be utilized for the purposes of construction of
proposed police line.
(viii) for issuance of direction upon the
respondents, restraining them from taking any
steps to demolish the houses of the petitioner till
the issues involved in the present case is
adjudicated.
(ix) for further give other legal
consequential benefit to the petitioner.”
3. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that the
document attached as annexures clearly show that the
respondents have not taken any steps whatsoever warranting
them to knock the doors of Patna High Court. All the documents
that has been attached with the writ petition are of the period
2011 to 2013. As and when, any situation such arises, the
petitioner will have the opportunity to once again come before
this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9815 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
6/6
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if
such liberty is available to him, it will suffice to him and in that
background, the writ petition can be disposed of.
5. Recording the versions of the parties and granting
liberty to the petitioner that if situation such warrants, he can
move before the High Court.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.