Patna High Court

Kashinath MishraversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 26 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: THE CHIEF JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

Holding

The appellate court set aside the Single Judge’s order and directed the Collector to refer the compensation dispute to the competent Authority.

Summary

Kashinath Mishra appealed against the dismissal of his writ petition seeking payment of compensation for land acquired for the Ram Janki Path project. He claimed ownership of the land, submitted applications and a favorable report from the Circle Officer confirming his right to compensation, but the Single Judge dismissed the petition. The appellant argued that under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013, any dispute on compensation apportionment must be referred by the Collector to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority. The appellate court held that the Single Judge erred by not directing such a referral and set aside the dismissal. It ordered the District Magistrate‑Collector to refer the dispute to the competent Authority for a prompt decision, without expressing any view on the merits of the compensation claim.

Issues considered

Whether the Collector was obligated to refer the dispute on compensation apportionment to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under Section 76 of the 2013 Act.
Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without considering the Circle Officer's report and the statutory mandate.
Whether the civil court can entertain the dispute despite Section 63 of the 2013 Act barring civil court jurisdiction over such matters.

Legislation cited

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 3(f), 51, 63, 64, 76

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
dispute resolution
Section 76
authority referral
writ petition
mandamus
Right to Fair Compensation Act
civil court jurisdiction
perverse order

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.111 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19752 of 2024
======================================================
Kashinath Mishra s/o Dharmnath mishra Resident of Village- Takipur, Police
Station- Maharajganj, District- Siwan (Bihar).

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Saran, Chapra.
3. The Competent Authority-Cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan.
4. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Siwan.
5. The Additional Collector, Siwan.
6. The Circle Officer, Maharajganj, Siwan.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Waliur Rahman, Advocate
Mr.Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijit Gautam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 26-02-2026

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the

appellant-Kashinath Mishra challenging the order dated

23.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.

19752 of 2024.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed seeking for the

following relief(s):-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.111 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
2/7

“(i) a direction For issuance of writ/s,
order/s, direction/s in the nature of mandamus,
commanding the respondent to issue to immediately
make payment against the acquired of land of the
petitioner situated under Mauza-Sarangpur, Thana No.
537, Khata No. 516, 217, Khesra No. 291, 290, 288,
289, 295, 296, 297, 299, 300 acquired under the
construction of the Project namely Ramjanki Path.
ii. For further issuance of writ/s, order/s,
direction/s to pay the entire amount of compensation
along with penal interest @24% per annum.”

3. It is the case of the appellant that his land was

acquired for the construction of Ram Janki Path, pertaining to

Mauza-Sarangpur, Thana No. 537, Khata Nos. 516 and 217, and

Khesra Nos. 291, 290, 288, 289, 295, 296, 297, 299, and 300.

The said land was the ancestral property of the petitioner-

appellant, and upon partition of the joint family property, it fell

to the petitioner’s share. The petitioner is in cultivating

possession of the land for the last 40 years. It is the further case

of the appellant that the land was acquired for the four-lane

scheme of Ram Janki Path as NH-227A (Siwan–Masrakh). For

the said widening and extension of the road, the land was

acquired by the Authority in Land Acquisition Case No. 13 of

2021–22, and thereafter an award was prepared. The entire land

originally belonged to one Chandradev Mishra, who was the

maternal forefather of the appellant. Upon learning that his co-

sharers were attempting to obtain the compensation in their
Patna High Court L.P.A No.111 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
3/7

favour, the appellant filed his objection and submitted all

relevant documents before the Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan,

asserting his ownership over the land.

4. The application was submitted on 11.03.2022, which

has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1 and

thereafter another application was submitted to the District

Magistrate, Siwan for making payment of the compensation

which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is

further case of the appellant that on the application of the

appellant, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan issued

Memo No. 1011 dated 07.08.2024 to the Circle Officer,

Maharajganj and called for a detailed report regarding claim of

the petitioner along with the opinion of the Circle Officer

regarding payment of compensation to the appellant and the

Circle Officer, Maharajganj submitted a detailed report, in

which he has opined that the appellant is entitled to get the

payment of compensation as he has share in the land and there is

no dispute pending over the land. The said report of the Circle

Officer, Mahagajganj has been annexed to the writ petition as

Annexure-4. It is the case of the appellant that, although he has

approached the Office of the District Land Acquisition Officer,

Siwan, on several occassions with a request for payment of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.111 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
4/7

compensation in respect of the land acquired by the Authority,

no action has been taken in this regard.

5. When the matter was taken up on 23.01.2025, before

the learned Single Judge, a submission was made by learned

counsel for the State, with reference to Annexure-4 to the writ

petition, that the land stood recorded in the name of the

petitioner's maternal grandfather and that the sons of the

maternal grandfather were in possession of the land. It was

further submitted that there was no dispute with respect to the

land and that the enquiry report of the Circle Officer,

Maharajganj did not even remotely suggest that the land

belonged to the petitioner.

6. On the basis of such submission and after perusing

the enquiry report of the Circle Officer, Maharajganj, the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the

Circle Officer, Maharajganj conducted a comprehensive enquiry

into the matter and submitted a detailed report dated 09.09.2024

which confirmed the appellant’s rightful claim to compensation

and the report further clarified that the objection raised during

the acquisition process was baseless and it was resolved in

favour of the appellant. Learned counsel further argued that in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.111 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
5/7

view of specific provision available in the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘Act, 2013’ ), if there is a dispute as to the apportionment,

the Collector is required to refer such dispute to the Authority

which has been defined under the ‘Act, 2013’ and since the

Authority has not taken any steps, the appellant was constrained

to approach this Court by filing the writ petition, however, the

writ petition was dismissed without any cogent reason and since

there is perversity in the order, the L.P.A may be entertained and

the impugned order be set aside.

8. Section 76 of the ‘Act, 2013’, which relates to

dispute as to the apportionment states that ‘when the amount of

compensation has been settled, if any dispute arises as to the

apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the

persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the

Collector may refer such disputes to the Authority’.

‘Authority’ has been defined under Section 3(f) of

‘Act, 2013’ which means Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Authority established under section 51 of the

said Act.

Section 51 of ‘Act, 2013’ states that the appropriate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.111 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
6/7

Government, for the purpose of providing speedy disposal of

disputes relating to land acquisition, compensation,

rehabilitation and resettlement, establish, by notification, one or

more Authorities to be known as the “Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority” in exercise of

jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on it by or under

this Act, and the appropriate government shall also specify in

the notification referred to in sub-section (1) the areas within

which the Authority may exercise the jurisdiction for

entertaining and deciding the references made to it under section

64 and applications made by the applicant under second proviso

to sub-section (1) of section 64.

Section 63 of ‘Act, 2013’, bars the jurisdiction of

the Civil Court to entertain any dispute relating to land

acquisition in respect of which the Collector or the Authority is

empowered by or under the ‘Act, 2013’ and it further stipulates

that no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any

such matter.

9. Taking note of the aforenoted statutory provisions,

we are of the view that the submission advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant that the Collector ought to have

referred the dispute to the Authority has got substantial force
Patna High Court L.P.A No.111 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
7/7

and the appellant’s prayer should not have been rejected by the

learned Single Judge for referring the matter to the Authority.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for both the

parties and having found perversity in the order of the learned

Single Judge dated 23.01.2025 passed in CWJC No. 19752 of

2024, we set aside the said order.

11. The respondent no. 4-District Magistrate-cum-

Collector, Siwan shall act upon the certified copy of this order

produced before him and shall now refer the dispute to the

Competent Authority. The Authority concerned shall thereafter

take a decision expeditiously in accordance with law.

It is made clear that we have expressed no opinion

on the merits of the claim of the appellant regarding his

entitlement to get compensation.

Accordingly the LPA stands disposed of.

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

(Harish Kumar, J)
Ranjan/.-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.02.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…