Patna High Court

Kanchan DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 20 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SUDHIR SINGH RITESH KUMAR

Holding

An intra‑court Letters Patent appeal cannot go beyond the pleadings, issues and material placed before the original writ court, and therefore the Single Judge’s order refusing interference in the land acquisition matter stands affirmed.

Summary

The appellants, a group of landowners, challenged the acquisition of 23.71 acres for a police line in Madhepura, alleging that compensation had not been paid and possession not taken. The Single Judge held that the location of a police line is an administrative decision and the court could not intervene. On appeal, the appellants relied on Section 24 of the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation Act, arguing that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed and should be restarted. The appellate court observed that these submissions were not raised before the Single Judge and that a Letters Patent intra‑court appeal cannot introduce new facts or issues beyond the original writ petition. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Netai Bag v. State of W.B., the court affirmed that the scope of the appeal is limited to the material before the writ court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the Single Judge’s order left undisturbed, with liberty to file a review if desired.

Issues considered

The adequacy of compensation and possession in the land acquisition for the police line.
Whether Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act.
Whether an intra‑court Letters Patent appeal may consider facts, pleadings or arguments not raised before the original writ court.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 4
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 24

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
section 24
Right to Fair Compensation Act
Letters Patent appeal
intra‑court appeal
administrative decision
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.80 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16871 of 2021
======================================================
1. Kanchan Devi Wife of Sri Vinod Kumar Resident of Village- Puraini, P.S.-
Sri Nagar, District- Madhepura.
2. Suneeta Devi Wife of Shambhu Kumar Yadav Resident of Village- Madhaili
Bazar, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.
3. Ruby Kumari Wife of Kamaleshwari Yadav Resident of Village- Raibhir,
P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.
4. Nilu Kumari Wife of Dilip Kumar Resident of Village- Jogbani, P.S.-
Gamharia, District- Madhepura.
5. Sanjiv Kumar Yadav @ Sanjeev Kumar Son of Ramji Prasad Yadav
Resident of Village- Maheshua, P.S. and District- Madhepura.
6. Suneeta Devi Wife of Anil Yadav Resident of Village- Jirwa Tola, Hilorwa,
P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.
7. Anumala Devi Wife of Sri Bhola Yadav Resident of Village- Jirwa Tola,
Madhaili, P.S. and District- Madhepura.
8. Brajesh Kumar Son of Balkrishna Yadav Resident of Village- Bhaluaha,
Ward No.- 10, P.S.- Singheshwar, District- Madhepura.
9. Sanjan Kumari Wife of Manoj Kumar Resident of Village- Hanuman Nagar
Chaura, P.S. and District- Madhepura.
10. Ranjit Kumar Son of Gajendra Yadav Resident of Village- Jhikatiya, P.S.-
Ghailadh, District- Madhepura.
11. Arjun Yadav Son of Kamleshwari Yadav Resident of Village- Shiv Nagar,
Jamuaha, P.S.- Kumar Khand, District- Madhepura.
12. Munmun Devi Wife of Sri Rakesh Kumar Resident of Village- Shiv Nagar,
Jamuara, P.S.- Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura.
13. Kavita Kumari Wife of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Resident of Village- Bhelwa,
P.S. and District- Madhepura.
14. Sumeet Kumar Suman Son of Ram Kumar Yadav Resident of Village- Ward
No.- 11, Kariyat, P.S.- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa.
15. Gulab Devi Wife of Sri Mahendra Thakur Resident of Village- Ward No.- 2,
Aratoha, Rajbhir, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.
16. Pinki Kumari Wife of Sri Umesh Kumar Resident of Village- Amaha, P.S.
and District- Supaul.
17. Gunjan Devi Wife of Mukesh Kumar Resident of Village- Chikani Tola,
Jogbani, P.S.- Gamhariya, District- Madhepura.

... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary of the Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.80 of 2024(10) dt.20-01-2026
2/6

2. The Principal Secretary of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhepura.
5. The District Sub Registrar, Madhepura.
6. The Circle Officer, Madhepura, District- Madhepura.
7. Ratnesh Kumar Son of Prithvi Lal Yadav Resident of Village- Jirwa Tola
Maujama, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.
8. Kari Devi Wife of Sri Brahmdeo Sah Resident of Village- Raibhir Tola,
Artaha, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.
9. Most. Pramila Devi Wife of Late Mahendra Sah Resident of Village- Raibhir
Tola, Artaha, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.
10. Ruby Devi Wife of Sri Hari Narayan Yadav Resident of Village- Raibhir
Tola, Artaha, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.

... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Addl. Advocate General 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

10 20-01-2026 The present intra Court appeal has been preferred

against the order dated 18.12.2023, passed in CWJC No.16871

of 2021, wherein the learned Single Judge has made the

following observations in paragraphs 4 & 5:-

“4. However, by filing counter affidavit, counsel
for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 submits that the land
acquisition of the land for construction of Police
Line, Madhepura is in the light of requisition
vide Letter No. 3588/G.S. dated 20.08.2008 of
Superintendent of Police, Madhepura. The land
acquisition process was initiated under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.80 of 2024(10) dt.20-01-2026
3/6

acquisition of 23.71 acre land. For this,
notification was published in the local
newspapers on 08.09.2011 and after publication
of the notification, declaration for the acquired
land was published in the newspapers on
11.09.2011. Thereafter, proceeding under
Section 11, Act 1 of 1894 the award of the
acquired land was declared on 30.08.2013 and
till now Rs. 3.208548 crore compensation
amount has been disbursed among the raiyats. It
is further submitted that allocation of land for
Police Line is an administrative decision and it
has been decided after taking into consideration
the strategic location of the local
administration.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and
having perused the materials available on
record, I do not find any merit in the
application. Location of Police Thana/Line is
primarily for the State government to decide.
The appropriate authority for deciding the place
of construction of Police Thana/Line would be
the concerned department and/or the local
administration. This is purely an administrative
matter. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the
role of administrator to start taking
administrative decisions where the Police Line
should be constructed or not.”

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

compensation for the land in question has not been paid to the

appellants nor the possession of the land in question has been
Patna High Court L.P.A No.80 of 2024(10) dt.20-01-2026
4/6

taken by the concerned authorities. Learned counsel for the

appellants further submits that any acquisition of land being

done at this stage would require initiation of a fresh land

acquisition proceeding by the respondent authorities.

3. In support of his claim, the learned counsel has

relied upon Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013, which is reproduced as under:

“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(1 of 1894),-
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said
Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all
provisions of this Act relating to the
determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has
been made, then such proceedings shall
continue under the provisions of the said Land
Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), in case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under
the said section 11 has been made five years or
more prior to the commencement of this Act but
the physical possession of the land has not been
taken or the compensation has not been paid the
said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed
Patna High Court L.P.A No.80 of 2024(10) dt.20-01-2026
5/6

and the appropriate Government, if it so
chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such
land acquisition afresh in accordance with the
provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made
and compensation in respect of a majority of
land holdings has not been deposited in the
account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for
acquisition under section 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.”

4. Though, the aforesaid grounds have been taken in

the present intra court appeal, on perusal of records and the

impugned order, it is evident that such submissions were never

advanced before the learned Single Judge.

5. It is a settled principle of law that no additional

facts or the facts beyond the records of the writ Court can be

taken in the intra Court appeal. The scope of a Letters Patent

Appeal is very limited and it cannot be greater than the original

Writ Petition. The Appellate Court, while exercising intra Court

appellate jurisdiction, cannot go beyond the pleadings, issues

and materials which were placed before the learned Writ Court.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to take note of the judgment

passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netai Bag & Ors. v. State
Patna High Court L.P.A No.80 of 2024(10) dt.20-01-2026
6/6

of W.B. & Ors., reported in (2000) 8 SCC 262, wherein it was

observed as under:

“13. …..The appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court and in this
Court being in continuation of the
original proceedings in the form of writ
petition, cannot enlarge the scope of
inquiry at this belated stage…….”

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and the discussions

made herein, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the

learned Single Judge.

7. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of

with the liberty that the appellants may file a review application

before the learned Single Judge, if so advised.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J.)

(Ritesh Kumar, J.)

Gaurav Kumar/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…