Satish Kumar Ray vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4779 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        Letters Patent Appeal No.478 of 2021
                                           In
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2167 of 2018
     ======================================================

Satish Kumar Ray Son of Late Raj Kishor Narayan Ray, resident of Village - Darba, Police Station- Tajpur (Halai O.P), District - Samastipur.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Patna - 800001.

2. The Director, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Patna - 800001.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga, District - Darbhanga.

4. The District Magistrate, at Samastipur, District - Samastipur.

5. The District Land Acquisition Officer at Samastipur, District - Samastipur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Ms. Nutan Sahay ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

Date : 05-12-2022 Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar, learned advocate for

the appellant and Ms. Nutan Sahay for the State.

The appellant felt aggrieved by the order dated

06.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC

No. 2167 of 2018, whereby his claim of being an owner of

the land, which was acquired for construction of ITI

building, was rejected.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.478 of 2021 dt.05-12-2022

The appellant had contended before the learned

Single Judge that the land in question was acquired

without appropriate notice and compensation to the

appellant as the land owner.

Both the aforenoted statements were contested

by the respondent/State by stating that notice was issued;

objections were invited to the proposal of acquisition of

land and that the land in question, which today stands

acquired over which ITI building has been constructed, is

not the land which the appellant claims to be his. The land

so acquired is the Gairmajarua land, which is shown in the

records as fallow land (Parti Kadim).

The learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that merely because a land has been shown to

be "Parti Kadim"/fallow, that does not necessarily mean

that it is a government land.

The appellant has tried to demonstrate that the

land which has been acquired is his raiyati land. Patna High Court L.P.A No.478 of 2021 dt.05-12-2022

The learned counsel for the State has drawn the

attention of this Court to the counter affidavit wherein

there is a specific statement that the boundaries of the

land of the appellant does not tally with the land which

stood acquired and that such acquisition was not only on

the basis of the land being fallow, but it being a

Gairmajarua-Aam land.

The learned Single Judge, finding that the issue

involves a declaration of title which cannot be done by a

Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, dismissed the writ application with a

liberty to the appellant to file a suit before the civil court of

competent jurisdiction.

It was also observed by the learned Single Judge

that the appellant's claim for fair compensation under the

provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013, would depend upon the outcome

of such suit.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.478 of 2021 dt.05-12-2022

The learned Single Judge is absolutely justified in

not having entertained the writ application of the appellant.

It is open for the appellant to agitate for a

declaration of title over the land which has been acquired

before a competent civil court and in case it is returned

with such declaration, it would be a ground for him to

claim fair compensation for the land so acquired.

However, there is nothing for us now to interfere

with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal stands dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

( Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) rishi/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          12.12.2022
Transmission Date