Patna High Court
Amarjeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 18 November, 2024
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10309 of 2022
======================================================
Amarjeet Kumar S/o Sri Ghanshyam Chandra resident of Village-
Madhusudan Nagar (Gurudhan), P.S.-Bounsi, District-Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Banka
3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Banka
4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Banka
5. Circle Officer, Banka
6. Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bhagalpur
7. Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bhagalpur
8. Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Banka-2
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Chhaya Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-11-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC-
25 for the State.
2. The Collector, Banka in compliance of the order
dated 14.11.2024 is present in the Court.
3. The Collector, Banka, at the outset, submits that the
land in dispute belongs to the petitioner but then he is not entitled
for compensation for the reason that the land in dispute for a pretty
long time even prior to 1986 was being used by the villagers as
rural road.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
2/14
4. The said submission of the Collector has been
recorded at the outset as it would have bearing on adjudication of
the instant writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land
pertaining to Khata No. 36, Khesra No. 1955, area 80 decimal (in
dispute 20 decimal), Thana No. 386, Mauza Bagdumba was
purchased by the mother of the petitioner Late Shobha Ghose from
Arvind Kumar Rai by a registered sale deed dated 20.02.1986.
6. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities
constructed Bhagalpur-Dumka Road to Bagdumba under Chief
Minister Rural Land Anurakshan Programme in which 20 decimal
of the land in question was used without acquiring the same under
Section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without consent
of the land owner, as such, no compensation was paid to the land
owner. It is next submitted that the mother of the petitioner after
purchasing the land got the same mutated and Jamabandi No. 1675
was created. The Circle Officer, Baunsi also issued Land
Possession Certificate (Annexure-2) in the name of the mother of
the petitioner, thereafter the rent of the land has been paid up-to-
date up till 2022-23 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel next submits
that subsequently even the Circle Officer issued Land Possession
Certificate on 20.06.2024 when the dispute had arisen (Annexure-
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
3/14
P-10 of the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner). It
is also submitted that the Circle Officer even accepted rent up-till
2025.
7. It is further submitted that the mother of the petitioner
died on 26.04.2021 but prior to her death she had objected the
construction of the road without acquiring the land. It is next
submitted that from perusal of Annexure-4, it would manifest that
the road was constructed under Chief Minister Rural Land
Anurakshan Programme.
8. It is further submitted that since no action was taken
on the objection of the mother of the petitioner, hence, the
petitioner made a representation dated 07.06.2022 (Annexure-5)
before the District Magistrate, Banka raising his grievance and the
copy of the representation was also sent to other respondents.
9. It is submitted that since representation of the
petitioner was not acted upon, as such, the instant writ application
has been filed seeking a direction upon the authorities to pay
compensation of 20 decimal of land utilized for construction of the
aforesaid road without acquiring the land.
10. It is further submitted that a counter affidavit on
behalf of the Collector (respondent no. 2) and District Land
Acquisition Officer (respondent no. 3) was filed on 10.02.2023
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
4/14
wherein it was pleaded that the road in question was constructed
by the Rural Works Department, Bhagalpur represented by the
respondent no. 6 and 8 in the year 2012. Further, the road was
constructed under PMGSY bearing Package No. BR-03-043
pursuant to the scheme 2008-09, in pursuance whereof an
agreement was executed in between respondent no. 8 and the
contractor. The road, accordingly, was constructed in the year 2012
and the maintenance of the road was fixed from 01.10.2012 to
30.09.2017
. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2022 i.e.
10 years after the construction of the road when NIT was invited
for maintenance of the road from 23.09.2021 to 22.09.2026, thus it
is contended that had the road been built on the land of the
petitioner in that event the writ petition would not have been filed
after such a delay.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that though the Collector and the respondent no. 3 in their
counter affidavit filed on 10.02.2023 have taken a stand that had
the land belonged to the petitioner in that event the writ petition
would not have been filed after such a delay but then today when
the case was taken up, at the outset, the Collector accepted this fact
that the land belongs to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
12. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed his
reply to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2 and 3 on
28.02.2023 wherein it was pleaded that since objection of the
mother of the petitioner was not acted upon, hence, after the death
of his mother, the petitioner took up the cause. Further, from
perusal of Annexure-4, it would manifest that the same does not
record that the road was constructed under PMGSY scheme.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3
on 10.02.2023 was based on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondent no. 8 on 24.08.2022 as the pleading if not akin
were similar. It is further submitted that after the counter affidavit
dated 10.02.2023 on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 was filed
the case was taken up by this Court on 24.03.2023 and the Court
recorded that petitioner at para 9 of the writ petition has
specifically stated that the road has been constructed on his land
and the counter affidavit while replying para 9 of the writ petition
states that it is a matter of record, hence, in effect, the respondents
agreed that construction of road took place on the land of the
petitioner without acquisition, hence, the Collector along with the
DLAO (respondent no. 3) and the Executive Engineer (respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
no. 8) were directed to file further counter affidavit as the Court
was not satisfied by the counter affidavit dated 10.02.2023.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
this Court while recording its order dated 24.03.2023 had passed
the order based on the principle of doctrine of non-traverse as the
Collector and the DLAO in their counter affidavit filed on
10.02.2023 had not replied the specific averment made by the
petitioner in the writ application at para 9 but then in the counter
affidavit very conveniently, it was pleaded that had the land
belonged to the petitioner in that event the writ application would
not have been filed after such a delay.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
a supplementary counter affidavit dated 23.05.2023 was filed on
behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 duly sworn by the DCLR
wherein it was pleaded that respondent no. 8 vide his letter no. 609
dated 26.04.2023 had requested the Circle Officer, Bounsi to
measure the land in question and to submit a report to show
whether the land in question used for construction of the road was
raiyati land of the petitioner or not. The Circle Officer,
accordingly, after getting the land measured by the Amin
submitted his report vide letter no. 371 dated 27.04.2023
(Annexure-A series to the supplementary counter affidavit) along
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
with the trace map. Further, the respondent no. 8 vide his letter
dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-B to the supplementary counter
affidavit) informed the Collector with regard to the valuation of
raiyati land of the petitioner used for construction of the road, after
the Circle Officer submitted his report dated 27.04.2023. The letter
dated 28.04.2023 clarified that 20 decimal of land of the petitioner
was used for construction of the road.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when
counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 was filed
on 10.02.2023, in that counter affidavit a stand was taken that
perhaps the land does not belong to the petitioner, but when the
supplementary counter affidavit dated 23.05.2023 was filed on
behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 in that counter affidavit, after
measurement of the land by the Circle Officer, the Collector
accepted that the land in dispute belongs to the petitioner and 20
decimal of land of petitioner was used for construction of the road.
It is further submitted that respondent no. 3 in pursuance of letter
dated 28.04.2023 of the respondent no. 8 also issued letter no. 87
dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-C to the supplementary counter
affidavit) addressed to the respondent no. 8 submitting valuation
report of the land under perpetual lease policy amounting to Rs.40
lakhs. The letter dated 28.04.2023 of the respondent no. 3 also
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
recorded that in view of letter no. 450 dated 12.04.2017 of the
Revenue Department, a Six Member Committee would be
constituted to ascertain the nature of the land in pursuance whereof
the compensation can increase or decrease.
17. It is next submitted that supplementary counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 on
23.05.2023, after recording the aforesaid facts also recorded that
the writ petition thus has become infructuous and is fit to be
dismissed.
18. Learned counsel submits that had this Court believed
the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector
and DLAO perhaps the writ petition would have been permitted to
be withdrawn considering that the grievance of the petitioner
stands redressed.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that a supplementary counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of
the respondent no. 8 on 04.05.2023 in compliance of the order
dated 17.04.2023 of this Court wherein it was pleaded that after
measurement of the land by the Circle Officer and valuation report
of the DLAO, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.
20. It is submitted that from the supplementary counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
no. 8 one thing which was common was that all the three
authorities had taken a similar plea that grievance of the petitioner
stands redressed.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
from perusal of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondent no. 2, 3 and 8, it would manifest that the
authorities had taken a conscious decision to compensate the
petitioner with regard to 20 decimal of land which was used for the
construction of the road. Further, it is an admitted fact that the land
in dispute is raiyati land of the petitioner and apart from the
petitioner there are no claimants.
22. It is submitted that all of a sudden, a second
supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the
respondent no. 2 and 3 dated 05.02.2024 which was sworn by the
respondent no. 3.
23. Learned counsel submits that the averments made in
the second supplementary counter affidavit was in complete
breach of the stand taken by the Collector and the DLAO earlier in
their counter affidavit which was filed on their behalf as recorded
hereinabove. It is submitted that in the second supplementary
counter affidavit it has been pleaded that respondent no. 8
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
provided the proposal after consulting the land holder under
perpetual lease policy on 03.01.2024 (Annexure-E series to the
respondent no. 3). The respondent no. 3 finding deficiencies in the
proposal vide his letter no. 05 dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure-F
series) returned proposal to respondent no. 8 to rectify the
deficiencies. Since the deficiencies were not rectified and time was
lapsing as such a reminder was sent when the respondent no. 2 (the
Collector) vide his memo no. 37 dated 27.01.2024 (Annexure-G
series) constituted a Three Member Committee of respondent no.
3, DCLR and respondent no. 5 to inquire and submit a report.
24. It is submitted that the Three Men Committee
examined the sale deed of the mother of the petitioner and found
that there is a road in the sale deed on the south side of the
purchased land boundary. Further, mother of the petitioner had
sold the portion of the land in question on 24.07.2013, 28.02.2013
and 27.01.2014 by three sale deeds. Further, mother of the
petitioner on 01.03.2013 (Annexure-H series) sold the land to
different purchasers through sale deeds in which the mother of the
petitioner has been shown in north side of the rural road. It appears
that mother of the petitioner has already sold the land and
petitioner now is illegally claiming the land. Further, the Three
Men Committee also got the land measured by Anchal Amin and it
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
was found that the rasta shown in the south side of the boundary of
the land is not found on the spot as such it could not be measured.
Further, Three Men Committee also made spot verification and
examined the villagers who gave in writing that they are using the
purchased land of the mother of the petitioner as rural road since
1986. Accordingly, the Three Men Committee which was
constituted on 27.01.2024 submitted its report to the respondent
no. 2 vide their letter no. 41 dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure-J series).
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it
absolutely does not stand to reason that if the land has already
been sold by the mother of the petitioner then why no claimants
are there. It is further submitted that it is the petitioner alone who
is litigating and claiming the compensation of his raiyaiti land on
which the aforesaid road was constructed and even Land
Possession Certificate was issued vide Annexure-3 and
subsequently in the year 2024 and the rent receipt has been
accepted up till the year 2025. Further, the Collector at the outset
had accepted that the land is raiyati land of the petitioner.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
even if it is presumed though not admitted that what has been
stated in the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the Collector is correct in that event the assertion in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
second supplementary counter affidavit is that the villagers were
examined who disclosed to the Three Men Committee that they are
using the road since before 1986 which was purchased by the
mother of the petitioner. It is submitted that if petitioner or his
mother were not objecting the villagers from using the road in
question whether that gives an authority to the District Authorities
to use the land for the proposes of constructing the road without
acquiring and giving compensation when the Collector at the
outset had admitted that he does not dispute that the land does not
belong to the petitioner but the compensation is being disputed on
the ground that the land was being used by the public from much
before and also that the sale deed by which the mother of the
petitioner had purchased the land had recorded the boundary of the
land in question and in the south road was shown but when she
sold the land to different purchasers the boundary of the land
changed and in the north the road was shown. It is next submitted
that it absolutely defies all logic, wisdom and reasonable
administrative behaviour that when the Circle Officer on direction
of his superior authorities earlier got the land in question measured
and found that 20 decimal of land of the petitioner was utilized for
construction of the aforesaid road and thereafter again issued a
Land Possession Certificate but then the same authority when he
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
became a Member of the Three Men Committee resiled from his
earlier findings which amply demonstrates that he was working
under the dictates of his superior.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the cost of
repetition submits that had this Court believing the respondent
authorities had allowed the writ application to be withdrawn on the
ground that grievance of the petitioner stands redressed in that case
what would have happened, the second round of litigation would
have started.
28. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
Collector has fairly at the outset submitted that the land in dispute
belongs to the petitioner but then the land was used as road by the
villagers. It is further submitted that if the petitioner wants the
District Administration is ready to return the 20 decimal of land on
which the aforesaid road was constructed on which learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since a
road has been constructed on his raiyati land and the same is being
used by the public at large including the vehicles and if the District
Administration now will return the land in that event the villagers
may get enraged and some untoward occurrence may take place.
29. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and the
Collector, Banka the Court is in complete agreement with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10309 of 2022 dt.18-11-2024
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf the
petitioner and since petitioner is not willing to take his land back
as offered by the learned counsel for the State on instruction of the
Collector, hence, the Court directs the Collector, Banka to ensure
that the compensation of the land in question be paid within a
period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
30. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any
opinion with regard to the amount of compensation, the same
would be decided by the Collector, Banka in accordance with law.
31. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of.
32. The personal appearance of the Collector-cum-
District Magistrate, Banka is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 20.11.2024
Transmission Date
