Patna High Court
Rakesh Narayan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 10 April, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.22 of 2016
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11579 of 2011
======================================================
Rakesh Narayan Singh son of Late Kamaldeo Narayan Singh R/o Village,
P.O. and P.S.- Parbatta, District- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Disaster Management, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Land Acquisition Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Khagaria.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer, Khagaria.
7. The Circle Officer, Parbatta, Khagaria.
8. Mr. Anirudh Kumar, the then District Magistrate, Khagaria, presently posted
as Special Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar.
9. Mr. Rajiv Raushan, presently posted as Additional Secretary, Department of
Rural Development, Government of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh, (In Person)
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal (SC-3)
: Mr. Arjun Prasad, AC to SC-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-04-2025
Heard Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh (the petitioner in
person) and Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, learned SC-3 for the
State.
2. The present petition has been preferred:
"for review of the order dated 18.04.2012 passed
by Hon'ble Мr. Justice Prakash Chandra Verma
in C.W.J.C. NO. 11579 of 2011, in pursuance of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
2/12
the order dated 08.10.2015 passed by Hon'ble
the Acting Chief Justice sitting with Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Chakradhari Saran Singh in L.P.A. No.
1563/2015 by which the Hon'ble Court has
pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to file
review petition for review of the order dated
18.04.2012
in C.W.J.C. NO. 11579 of 2011."
3. The Writ Petition vide CWJC No. 11579 of 2011
was preferred by the father of the present petitioner namely
Kamaldeo Narayan Singh with the following prayer:
"that this application is being filed for directing
the respondents to immediately prepare the
award and make payment of compensation
amount petitioner on to the present market rate
with statutory interest in connection with Land
Acquisition Case No.4/1977-78 by which even
though the land measuring about 16 acres of the
petitioner situated in mauza Raka Temptha were
possessed by the respondents under emergent
provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition
Act in the year 1976-77 itself but the petitioner
has been deprived of the compensation amount
till date."
4. The Writ Petition was taken up by a coordinate
Bench of this Court (Hon'ble P.C. Verma, as his Lordship
then was) on 18.04.2012 and the same was dismissed though
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appropriate
application before Collector, Khagaria who shall dispose of the
matter within a month. The order dated 18.04.2012 read as
follows:
In the writ petition, the area of acquisition
has been disputed by the petitioner for payment
of compensation. For the verification of fact,
gazette notification under Section 4 or Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act mentioning the area
acquired has not been brought on record by the
petitioner to substantiate his claim. Thus in view
of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
case of Bharat Singh vs. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181, the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.
However, the petitioner may raise his
grievance before the Collector for payment of
compensation of the land acquired. The
Collector shall dispose of the matter within one
month from the date of receipt/production of an
application along with this order and the
compensation shall be paid to the petitioner of
the acquired land within a period of three
months thereafter.
5. It is to be noted that after the Writ Petition came to
be dismissed on 18.04.2012, the respondent authorities (the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
Collector, Khagaria) took up the matter and pursuant to the
report submitted by the committee headed by the Additional
Collector, Khagaria dated 06.08.2014, rejected the same on
09.08.2014.
6. Instead of the challenging the said order by filing a
proper Writ Petition, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1563 of
2015 came to be registered against the Writ Court's order one
year after the order was passed by the Collector, Khagaria in
August, 2014. It was taken up by a Division Bench headed by
Hon'ble the Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was) on
08.10.2015 and the same was disposed of as withdrawn granting
liberty to take recourse under such provision of law as may be
permissible. The order dated 08.10.2015 read as follows:
Heard Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, learned
counsel for the appellant.
After some argument learned counsel for the
appellant seeks permission to withdraw this
appeal with liberty to take recourse to such
provisions of law as may be permissible and also
to make appropriate application for review of the
order impugned in the appeal To the submissions
so made, no objection has been raised on behalf
of the respondents.
In view of the above and in the interest of
justice, this appeal is hereby disposed of as
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
withdrawn with liberty granted to the appellant
aforementioned.
7. The petitioner thereafter preferred Civil Review
No. 22 of 2016 (the present petition). Pursuant to the order of
coordinate Bench, the show cause of the Collector, Khagaria
dated 24.02.2020 was filed in which it has been recorded that
the land was measured in the physical presence of the petitioner,
the officials and independent witnesses which now stand
completed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
land belongs to his father and after his death to him. Though
there has been delay of thirty years in demanding the
compensation, the State too slept over the matter and they did
not made any communication whatsoever in this regard. Further,
the Letters Patent Appeal was filed immediately after the
disposal of the Writ Petition on 15.05.2012, however, it
remained defective for three years and came to be instituted
only in the year 2015.
9. On query by this Court, whether despite
opportunity granted by the Collector, Khagaria, the petitioner
could satisfy the authorities or not, the answer is in negative.
However, the contention is that the land belonged to him and as
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
such he was required to be compensated.
10. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sunil Kumar
Mandal on the other hand submits that the Writ Court dismissed
the petition but allowed his father to approach the respondents
who were directed to take up the application, if filed by the
petitioner (the present petitioner's father Kamaldeo Narayan
Singh) and to take the same to its logical conclusion.
11. Accordingly, and as per the document on record, a
committee headed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria took up
the matter and noticed the petitioner side, who chose not to
accept the same whereafter, it was pasted on the wall of the
petitioner's family in the presence of the Panchayat Secretary
and the independent witness.
12. Once the committee submitted its report on
06.08.2014, the Collector, Khagaria passed a reasoned order on
09.08.2014 negating the claim of the petitioner. He submits that
instead of challenging the said order dated 09.08.2014, the
review petition has been filed which need to be dismissed.
13. This Court has gone through the facts of the case
and the submissions of the parties. The facts that emerges is/are
as follows:
14. From the order-sheet dated 09.08.2014 passed by
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
the Collector, Khagaria it transpires that a contempt petition
vide MJC No. 4098 of 2013 was also filed. It was taken up on
23.06.2017 by the Hon'ble the then Chief Justice (as his
Lordship then was) and the Court recorded the fact that the
claim for compensation has been rejected and that legality or the
error in the order of the Collector, Khagaria cannot be looked
into the contempt proceeding and the petitioner is required to
challenge the order and get the same adjudicated in accordance
with law by taking recourse to such remedy as may be available
in law.
15. It would be appropriate to incorporate the relevant
paragraphs of the contempt order dated 23.06.2017 passed in
MJC No. 4098 of 2013 which read as follows:
From the aforesaid, it is clear that the writ
petition was dismissed by the learned Writ
Court. However, while parting an observation
was made that the Collector shall look into the
question of acquisition of land and if the land
of the petitioner is found to have been acquired,
compensation shall be paid.
....
Inter alia contending that the compensation
has not been paid by the Collector, this
application has been filed. Even though in the
counter affidavit it is indicated that certain
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
acquisition proceedings are pending, but finally
the claim for compensation has been rejected.
Now after the claim has been rejected, the
legality, the tenability or the error in the order of
the Collector cannot be looked into in these
contempt proceedings. It is a case where the
petitioner is now required to challenge the order
passed by the Collector rejecting his claim and
get the same adjudicated in accordance with law
by taking recourse to such remedy as may be
available in law. Even though learned counsel
for the petitioner during the course of hearing
tried to indicate that in cases of similarly
situated persons compensation has been granted,
but looking to the fact that in the order passed in
the writ petition there is no mandamus or
direction to pay compensation to the petitioner,
this Court in a contempt application cannot
issue any direction for the same.
In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the
manner in which his claim for compensation has
been considered and rejected, that gives a cause
of action to the petitioner to ventilate in
accordance with law, but no case for initiating
action for contempt against the respondents.
Accordingly, granting liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the action of the
respondents and claim compensation or any
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
other benefit as may be available to him in
accordance with law, this application stands
disposed of.
16. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the
opportunity granted by the respondents pursuant to the order
passed by the Writ Court was not deliberately availed by the
petitioner inasmuch as the notice sent was not accepted by his
mother on telephonic instruction given by the present petitioner.
Thereafter, it was affixed on his house in the presence of
Panchayat Secretary and the independent witnesses who put in
their respective signatures.
17. Later, having taken note of the findings of the
committee dated 06.08.2014 a reasoned order was passed by the
Collector, Khagaria on 09.08.2014 and the natural recourse for
the petitioner was to challenge the said order. Instead he kept on
pursuing his case by venturing into contempt.
18. To sum the entire case, it is held that:
i) the Writ Petition was preferred by the
petitioner's father Kamaldeo Narayan Singh on
18.04.2012. It was dismissed granting liberty to
him to agitate the matter before the Collector,
Khagaria.
ii) the Collector, Khagaria rejected the claim on
09.08.2014
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
iii) the appeal preferred vide LPA No. 1563 of
2015 was disposed of as withdrawn on
08.10.2015.
iv) the contempt petition (MJC No. 4098 of
2013) too came to be dismissed on 23.06.2017
and the reasoned order passed by the Hon'ble
the then Chief Justice in the contempt petition
clearly opined that the petitioner has the remedy
to challenge the order passed by the Collector,
Khagaria taking recourse to such remedy as
available under the law.
19. Instead of taking serious note of the observation of
Hon'ble the then Chief Justice, the petitioner pursued the review
petition and in continuation of that, wanted review Court to
direct the respondents to compensate him. This Court is afraid,
the same cannot be done. The Collector, Khagaria pursuant to
the order of the Writ Court, opportunity was granted to the
petitioner's family who chose not to accept the notice, it was
properly served by affixing on the house of the petitioner in the
presence of the Panchayat Secretary and the local Independent
witnesses. Thereafter, the committee headed by the Additional
Collector, Khagaria submitted a detailed report on 06.08.2014
which formed the basis for the Collector, Khagaria to pass a
reasoned order on 09.08.2014.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
20. Once the Collector, Khagaria passed an order on
09.08.2014 and if the petitioner had any grievance, he should
have challenged the said order by filing an appropriate petition.
21. Instead and belatedly, the defective appeal filed
against the Writ Court's order was finally made defect free in
the year 2015 after the order of the Collector, Khagaria came to
be passed in the year 2014. This too was disposed of as
withdrawn on 08.10.2015. The contempt petition too came to be
dismissed on 23.06.2017. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice (as his
Lordship then was) clearly observed that the natural recourse is
to challenge the same in accordance with law.
22. However, the petitioner, who himself is a lawyer
and fully knows the nitty gritty of law, is further appearing in
person, chose to look the other way and for the reasons best
known to him, continued with the Review Petition. It further
wanted this Court to pass an order by reviewing the Writ Court's
order.
23. Lots of water has flown down the ganges since the
Writ Court's order was passed in the year 2012. The petitioner
having failed to challenge the order dated 09.08.2014 passed by
the Collector, Khagaria negating his claims has clearly missed
the bus.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.22 of 2016 dt.10-04-2025
24. This Court does not find any error in the order
passed by the Writ Court which despite having found no merit
in the writ petition directed the Collector, Khagaria to pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law. The way the
petitioner, despite being a lawyer has abused the process of law,
at one time, this Court wanted imposition of exemplary cost but
finally is refraining from doing so.
25. There is no merit in the review petition. It is
accordingly dismissed. No Cost.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
