Patna High Court
Lahasia Kuer vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 6 February, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1431 of 2019
======================================================
Lahasia Kuer Late Ram Naresh Singh resident of village- Gavasgarh Tarari
P.S. Daud Nagar and District- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the principal secretary, Department of land
reforms and revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (Bihar)
2. The Principal Secretary RCD Govt. of Bihar, Patna Patna
3. The managing Director, Bihar Rajya pul nirman Nigam Limited, Bihar Patna
Patna
4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad Aurangabad
5. The Additional Collector,Aurangabad Aurangabad
6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate , Daudnagar Aurangabad Aurangabad
7. The Deputy collector Land Reforms, Daudnagar, Aurangabad Aurangabad
8. The sub Registrar, office of the Registry, Sub Division Daudnagar,
Aurangabad Aurangabad
9. The Circle officer, Circle Daudnagar, Aurangabad Aurangabad
10. The then Anchal Amin (on Deputation) Circle Hasanpura Aurangabad
Aurangabad
11. The Senior Project Engineer Division Gaya BRPNNL (Bihar) Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.1431 of 2019 dt.06-02-2025
2/5
Senior Counsel for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for setting
aside the notice bearing No. 748 dated 13.06.2018, served upon
the petitioner, by which the respondent authorities have
demanded and directed the petitioner to return the excess
payment made in comparison to the nature of the acquired land
under the perceptual lease policy under the Bihar Lease Policy,
2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
vide notification No. 1333 dated 20.11.2015, a publication was
made in the local newspaper, according to which the State of
Bihar intended to acquire the land in question from the owners
under the Bihar Land Lease Policy, 2014. After due process of
law, the Bihar Land Lease Policy, 2014 was adopted with the
consent of the majority of the affected people of the area
through the 'Aam Sabha' of the village. The petitioner further
submits that the land acquisition was made for the State
Highway. The government fixed the amount and paid the
compensation to the petitioner and others. The petitioner
accepted the said amount in 2016, but subsequently, in 2018, a
demand was made to refund the excess payment made to the
petitioner on the ground that a Six-member Committee, after
Patna High Court CWJC No.1431 of 2019 dt.06-02-2025
3/5
due classification of the land, found that the calculation was
erroneous. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to deposit the
excess amount in the respondents' account. Further, it is
submitted that according to Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LARA
2013'), a limitation is fixed such that any correction may be
made within six months, but after the lapse of two years, no
such correction can be made according to law.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that while it is true that the lease was prepared and
payment was made to the petitioner, the State later discovered a
miscalculation. Therefore, the excess amount was paid, and the
issuance of the notice in this context is in accordance with the
law, and the petitioner should refund the amount.
5. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court
that the admitted position is that the land was acquired for the
purpose of constructing the State Highway and the acquisition
of land was made under the policy which was framed under
LARA 2013 (30 of 2013). The said lease policy mentions that
only clerical and mathematical errors can be rectified within six
months. However, in the present case, it is not a clerical or
Patna High Court CWJC No.1431 of 2019 dt.06-02-2025
4/5
mathematical error, as the authority, at the time of fixing
compensation, initially observed that the land of the petitioner
was residential in nature. But after the payment of
compensation, preparation of the lease, it has been found that
the land is agricultural in nature. Moreover, after a lapse of
about two years from the date of the fixation of the
compensation amount, the respondent authorities identified the
land as agricultural in nature. Based on this, a lesser amount of
compensation was recalculated.
6. As such, this Court is of the view that the District
Administration, in its earlier report dated 20.06.2016, fixed the
compensation amount and then framed a Six-member
Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate to
re-determine the compensation. The Court finds that such
arbitrary action by the District Magistrate cannot be permitted in
law, as this decision directly affects the petitioner. Moreover, it
has not been mentioned under which provision of law such
action was taken, nor was the petitioner given prior notice or
information before taking such action. Hence, the decision was
taken under an unknown provision of law and constitutes a
gross violation of natural justice.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, the Court finds
Patna High Court CWJC No.1431 of 2019 dt.06-02-2025
5/5
merit in the petitioner's argument, and thus the notice dated
13.06.2018
, bearing No. 748 (Annexure-5), is hereby set aside.
7. Accordingly, with this direction, the Writ Petition
allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12/02/2025
Transmission Date NA
