Patna High Court
Uma Shankar Prasad And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 April, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9978 of 2018
======================================================
1. Uma Shankar Prasad
2. Abhay Shankar Gupta
3. Rajeev Shankar Prasad
4. Manoj Shankar Gupta
5. Alok Shankar All Sons of late Bansi Dhar Prasad Resident of Ward No. 26,
Sarai gate After Abar Bridge Crossing, Ara Police Station-Ara Distirct-
Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of BIhar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Land Reforms Commissioner, Patna.
4. The Collector Bhojpur.
5. The Administrator, Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan,
Patna.
6. The Administrator, Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan,
Patna.
7. The Circle Officer, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur.
8. The Circle Officer, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md.Khurshid Alam -AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) for the issuance of a rule in the
nature of writ of Mandamus for a direction
Patna High Court CWJC No.9978 of 2018 dt.28-04-2025
upon the respondent authorities that the Land
Acquisition Proceeding pursuant to
Notification No. 8766 dated 15-12-86 for the
acquisition of the land of the petitioners
appertaining to Khata No. 1954, Khesra No.
63, 12890 and 905 with an area of 4.52 Acres
in Village Dawan in the District of Bhojpur
has been lapsed in the light of provisions
contained in Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (In short- The New
Act) in as much as the Award had been
prepared under section 11 of the Act on 28-
03-92 i.e. much prior to the commencement
of the New Act but the physical possession of
the land in question has not been taken till
date pursuant to the aforesaid Land
Acquisition Proceeding and in that view of
the matter the same would be deemed to have
lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Act.
(ii) for further the issuance of a
rule in the nature of writ of Mandamus
directing the respondent authorities that the
Notification No. 8766 dated 15-12-86 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(In short- The Old Act) had already lost its
life by virtue of proviso (ii) appended to
section 6(1) of the Old Act in as much as no
Declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act
Patna High Court CWJC No.9978 of 2018 dt.28-04-2025
which should be in the form of Order has
been issued and notified so far which was
mandatory for acquiring the land in question
and the respondent authorities may be
directed to hand over the vacant possession
of the land in question to the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
land acquisition proceeding has lapsed in light of the provisions
of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as RFCTLARR],
in spite of the fact that an award was prepared under Section 11
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 28.03.1992, i.e., much
prior to the commencement of the RFCTLARR, but physical
possession of the land has not been taken. Counsel further
submits that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has already lost its
force, therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to
hand over the vacant possession of the land in question to the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in this
case, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed, and in the
said supplementary counter-affidavit, a clear-cut stand has been
taken by the State, as mentioned in paragraph No. 6, that the land
in question was acquired, thereafter, an award was prepared,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9978 of 2018 dt.28-04-2025
compensation was paid to the mother of the petitioner, and
possession of the land in question was finally taken. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner has taken recourse to Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for enhancement of the
compensation. It has been submitted that the compensation was
also enhanced in terms of the judgment passed by the Sub-Judge,
2nd, Arah.
5. Counsel for the State has further taken the stand
that, even though the question with regard to other lands released
in favor of the landowners is not going to make the petitioner
entitled for the release of his mother's acquired land. It has been
mentioned that the lands claimed by the petitioner to have been
released were, in fact, released in cases where no compensation
had been taken by the other landowners.
6. Since, the land in question, the compensation was
not only determined but also paid to the mother of the petitioner
where after she had approached under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the mother was referred to the Sub-
Judge, 2nd, Arah, wherein the compensation was enhanced and
the enhanced compensation was also paid to the mother of the
petitioner. It is further stated that the boundary wall was also
constructed by the "State Marketing Yard" who was the
requisitioning authority and thereby possession of the land in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9978 of 2018 dt.28-04-2025
question was taken. It has been mentioned that no construction
was done on any other land owner's land except that of
petitioner.
7. It transpires to this Court that in paragraph No. 1(i),
it has been mentioned that physical possession of the land in
question has not been taken till date. However, in paragraph No.
1(ii), it has been stated that the respondent authorities may be
directed to hand over vacant possession of the land in question to
the petitioner.
8. It also transpires to this Court that paragraph Nos.
1(i) and 1(ii) are self-contradictory.
9. In view of the matter that the land in question has
already been acquired, and the enhanced amount has been
received by the petitioner's mother much earlier, and particularly
in light of the self-contradictory prayer, this Court finds that the
present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ
petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
