Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav And ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 5 May, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14272 of 2018
======================================================
1. Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Son of Late Laxmi Narayan @
Laxmi Narayan Yadav @ Laxmi Prasad.
2. Shyam Narayan Yadav @ Shyam Narayan Son of Late Babulal Yadav @
Babulal Gope.
3. Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Babulal Yadav @
Babulal Gope
4. Pramod Yadav @ Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Yadav, Son of Late
Babu Lal Yadav @ Babulal Gope, All resident of Shahadara, Ramdhani
Road, P.S.- Malsalami, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate cum Administrator, Bihar State Agricultural
Marketing Board, Patna.
4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
5. Land Acquisition Officer, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna.
6. Special Officer cum S.D.M. Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board,
Patna.
7. Sub Divisional Officer, Patna City District- Patna.
8. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Patna City, District- Patna.
9. Circle Officer, Sadar Patna, District Patna.
10. Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Visheshwaraiya
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Biha
11. Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation,
Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md.Khurshid Alam -AAG12
For B.S.T.D.C. : Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priti Mahato, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-05-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the State, and learned counsel for the Bihar State
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
2/16
Tourism Development Corporation.
2. Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2019 has been
filed seeking permission to incorporate an additional paragraph
in the writ petition, wherein the petitioners seek a stay on the
construction work being carried out on their land. The
construction was initiated pursuant to a general order dated
11.06.2019
, issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.),
Patna City, vide Letter No. 374.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a
general order for removal of encroachment from the petitioners'
specific land was passed by the S.D.M., Patna City, through
Letter No. 374 dated 11.06.2019. Pursuant to the said order,
construction activities commenced on 12.06.2019 on the
petitioners' land. He further submits that the S.D.M., Patna City,
in the aforementioned order, stated that he had been informed by
the Chief Engineer, Building Construction Division, Bihar,
Patna, that a portion of the south-western part of the Prakash
Punj Udyan, located at Katra Bazar Samiti near Gurubagh,
Patna City, had been encroached upon. Learned counsel also
submits that a stay was earlier granted on the order passed by
the S.D.M., Patna City.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that no
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
interference is warranted with respect to the order dated
11.06.2019 issued by the S.D.M., Patna City, as the land in
question was the subject of proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, against the father of the petitioners, and
the compensation amount has already been deposited. He
further submits that the writ petition was filed in the year 2019,
and it is now 2025; the directions contained in the order of the
S.D.M. have already been implemented, and the boundary wall
has since been constructed.
5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners
acknowledges that while the boundary wall has indeed been
constructed, it has been done so by way of encroachment.
6. In light of the fact that the construction has been
completed and the order of the S.D.M. has been complied with,
this Court finds that Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2019
has become infructuous due to prolonged pendency.
Accordingly, the said application is dismissed as having become
infructuous.
7. So far as the merits of the present writ petition are
concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a
direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to stop the
acquisition process and to transfer ownership of the land in
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
question to the petitioners. The land, situated at Simli Murarpur,
Patna City, District Patna, measures 94 decimals, comprising 79
decimals in Khata No. 743, Khesra No. 1455, and 15 decimals
in Khata No. 768, Khesra No. 1456. The petitioners contend that
the respondent authorities have illegally claimed the said land
for organizing 'Prakash Punj Udyan', despite the acquisition
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, having
lapsed. A further prayer has been made for appropriate monetary
compensation, as the petitioners have been deprived of their
means of livelihood from the said cultivable land since 1976.
The petitioners have also sought any other relief, order, or
direction to which they may be legally entitled.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
land acquisition process for the construction of the Marufganj
Agricultural Marketing Yard and related buildings in Village
Simli Murarpur was initiated in the year 1976 by the Land
Acquisition Officer, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board,
Punaichak, Patna-23. In furtherance of the same, Declaration
No. 439 dated 20.04.1976 was published on pages 1 and 2 of
Part II of the District Gazette dated 01.05.1976, under Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Pursuant to this declaration,
Award No. 8 was prepared for the acquisition of 94 decimals of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
land belonging to the petitioners, comprising 79 decimals in
Kheshra No. 1455 of Khata No. 743, and 15 decimals in
Kheshra No. 1456 of Khata No. 768, for which compensation of
Rs. 26,657/- was assessed. The land is situated in Mauza Simli
Murarpur, under Tauzi Nos. 222 and 228 and P.S. No. 38. He
furtehr submits that under the same declaration, Award No. 9
was prepared for land belonging to Baso Gope and others,
involving 25.5 decimals in Kheshra No. 1455 (Khata No. 743)
and 2 decimals in Kheshra No. 1457 (Khata No. 773), for which
Rs. 8,538.75 was determined as compensation. It is further
submitted that notice under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was
never served upon the landowners/interested persons.
Subsequently, Awardee No. 9 filed an objection, disputing the
land covered under Award No. 8. As a result, the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna, vide order dated 06.02.1979,
referred the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication under
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with respect to
title and possession disputes between Awardees No. 8 and No. 9.
In compliance with the Collector's order, the Land Acquisition
Officer referred L.A. Case No. 914/1976, arising from
Declaration No. 439, involving Babulal and others (Awardee
No. 8) and Raja Ram Yadav and others (Awardee No. 9) to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
Land Acquisition Judge-I, Patna, with a note that compensation
amounts of Rs. 26,657/- and Rs. 8,538.75 under Awards No. 8
and 9 respectively had not been disbursed.
9. Learned counsel further submits L.A. Case No.
318/1979 was initiated before the Land Acquisition Judge,
Patna, to adjudicate the dispute regarding title and possession of
the disputed land. In this case, Babulal Gope and Laxminarayan
@ Laxminarayan Yadav, both sons of Ram Ratan Bhagat,
represented Awardee No. 8, while Baso Gope, son of Raja Ram
Gope, and others represented Awardee No. 9. Babulal Gope
passed away in 1979, and the case continued through
Laxminarayan until his death in 2005. Since then, neither
Awardee No. 8 nor Awardee No. 9 has pursued the case further,
and it remains pending and inactive to date. This prolonged
inaction is attributed to a lack of knowledge and awareness on
the part of the heirs of Awardee No. 8.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioners, who are heirs of Awardee No. 8, include petitioner
no. 1, Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav (only son of
Laxminarayan) and petitioners no. 2 to 4 (sons of Babulal
Gope). The petitioners have always believed the land in
question to be their lawful property. This belief was further
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
reinforced in 2014, when a political rally (Sankalp Rally) was
held on the said land with the No Objection Certificate (NOC)
being taken from the petitioners by the then S.D.M., Patna City.
Similarly, for organizing the Prakash Parv, the Superintendent
of Takht Sri Hari Mandir Ji, Patna Sahib, Prabandhak
Committee also obtained an NOC from the petitioners. Learned
counsel further submits that whenever the petitioners attempted
to cultivate the land for their livelihood, they were obstructed by
a caretaker/in-charge acting under the repealed Bihar
Agricultural Produce Market Act, 2006, at the behest of the
S.D.M., Patna City, who was appointed as the Special Officer
under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market (Repeal) Act,
2006.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that following the repeal of the Bihar Agriculture Produce
Market Act, 1960 by the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market
(Repeal) Act, 2006 (Bihar Act 23 of 2006), the Standing Land
Acquisition Officer of the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing
Board, Patna, ceased to hold authority. In accordance with Rules
2 and 3(ii) of the said Repeal Act, the Special Officer and
Administrator are deemed to be the competent authority for
purposes of concluding proceedings initiated under the repealed
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
Act as if they were the designated authority under the former
legislation. It is further submitted that neither the repealed Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, nor the existing Land Acquisition Act,
2013 provides any authority or right to take possession of the
petitioners' land either by the objector or by the State authorities
acting on behalf of the defunct Marketing Board. In view of
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(Act No. 30 of 2013), possession of the land must legally
remain with the petitioners.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioners hold valid right, title, and possession over 1 acre 2
decimals of land situated in Kheshra Nos. 1455 and 1456,
comprising 87 decimals and 15 decimals, respectively, as
freehold raiyats. However, the land acquisition declaration was
erroneously made for only 94 decimals--specifically, 79
decimals in Kheshra No. 1455 and 15 decimals in Kheshra No.
1456. The petitioners further submits that rightful title and
possession over 3 decimals of land in Kheshra No. 1457,
thereby bringing the total extent of land under their possession
to 1 acre 5 decimals. The land was originally acquired by the
petitioners' ancestors by way of a registered sale deed bearing
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
No. 101 dated 24.07.1947, executed by vendor Abdul Razaque
in relation to Kheshra No. 1455. Additionally, 44 decimals were
settled in their favour by Bibi Umhani in the year 1935 under
the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, for which rent was regularly paid
to the then landlord, Bibi Umhani.
13. In light of the above background, learned counsel
further submits that the respondents have demonstrated gross
negligence and oversight by limiting the acquisition declaration
under Award No. 8 to only 94 decimals, despite the petitioners
having title over 1 acre 2 decimals in the relevant Kheshra. It is
further submitted that the respondents have failed to comply
with the procedural mandates under the Land Acquisition Act,
2013, and have not disposed of the petitioners' representations
in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. As a result,
the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Hon'ble
Court through the present writ petition.
14. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches. He submits that, as per the
records of land acquisition, Land Acquisition Case No.
9/V/1976 was instituted in respect of the land in question. The
records further indicate that the compensation amounts of Rs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
26,657/- and Rs. 8,538.75/-, totaling Rs. 35,195.75/-, were duly
deposited in the treasury on 14.02.1978. It is further submitted
that the acquisition process was initiated through proper
issuance of notices to the interested parties, and the notice was
received by one Pramod Kumar on behalf of Babu Lal on
20.05.1976, as evident from Annexure-B to the counter
affidavit. Learned counsel also submits that although L.A. Case
No. 318 of 1979 was admittedly initiated before the Land
Acquisition Judge, Patna, the petitioners themselves have stated
in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the writ petition about the said case,
yet no documentary evidence has been produced on record to
establish its proceedings or final outcome. It is further
contended that the dispute appears to be between the awardees
themselves concerning title and possession over the disputed
land, and due to this internal dispute, the compensation amounts
were not received. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioners have failed to pursue the matter diligently for over
four decades, and it was incumbent upon them to bring on
record the status or final decision of L.A. Case No. 318 of 1979.
15. Learned counsel for the State further submits that
in such circumstances, the delay and laches lie entirely with the
petitioners, and no fault can be attributed to the State. Therefore,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
it is contended that the acquisition proceedings cannot be held to
have lapsed, and as such, no relief or benefit can be granted to
the petitioners in this writ petition.
16. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the State, and upon perusal of the
records, this Court finds that the process of land acquisition had
indeed been initiated in accordance with law. An award under
Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was rightly
prepared with respect to the land in question under Declaration
No. 439 dated 20.04.1976. Specifically, Award No. 8 was
prepared for the acquisition of 94 decimals of land, comprising
79 decimals in Kheshra No. 1455, Khata No. 743 and 15
decimals in Kheshra No. 1456, Khata No. 768, for which
compensation of Rs. 26,657/- was assessed. This land falls
under Mauza Simli Murarpur, Patna City. Award No. 9 was
prepared for the acquisition of land belonging to other
individuals, for which an additional Rs. 8,538.75/- was
calculated as compensation.
17. From the pleadings of both parties and the records
on file, it is evident that objections were raised by the respective
awardees of Award Nos. 8 and 9 regarding title and possession
of the disputed land. As such, the District Magistrate-cum-
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
Collector, Patna, in accordance with Section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, referred the matter for adjudication to the
competent Civil Court, as the provision mandates that where a
dispute arises amongst claimants to compensation, the Collector
shall refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination.
Accordingly, Land Acquisition Case No. 318 of 1979 was
instituted before the Land Acquisition Judge, Patna, between the
claimants under Award No. 8 and Award No. 9. This fact has
also been admitted by the petitioners. The legal position is well-
settled that when such a dispute is referred to the Civil Court,
the compensation amount deposited before the competent
authority shall not be disbursed to any party until the final
adjudication of such reference. From Annexure-11, as well as
other documents annexed by the petitioners, it further transpires
that Land Acquisition Case No. 914 of 1976 formed the basis
for the reference due to mutual claims and counterclaims
between the parties, with awardees under Award No. 8 asserting
claims over the land included in Award No. 9, and vice versa.
Given this context, a valid and lawful reference under Section
30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was made. Moreover, a letter
dated 27.03.1979, issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bihar
State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna, which has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
placed on record by the petitioners themselves, corroborates the
above findings, which is as under :-
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
18. It is evident that both amounts, Rs. 26,657.00/-
and Rs. 8,538.75/- are the subject matter of a suo motu reference
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. This clearly
indicates that the State authorities had already tendered the
compensation in compliance with the acquisition proceedings.
However, due to a dispute arising between the awardees of
Award No. 8 and Award No. 9 concerning the title and
possession of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Authority
rightly withheld disbursal of the compensation, making it
contingent upon the final adjudication of L.A. Case No. 318 of
1979. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that,
for various reasons, the said case could not be concluded.
Consequently, the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble
Court, primarily relying on the assertion that their consent was
taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Patna City, for
organizing public functions, including a political rally and the
celebration of Prakash Parv. This Court finds it surprising that
while the petitioners assert that the State sought their consent for
such events implying acknowledgment of their possession they
simultaneously seek a direction from this Court for restoration
of possession over the said land. These inconsistent and
contradictory pleadings weaken the petitioners' case and reflect
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
a lack of legal clarity in the relief sought.
19. After hearing the parties and perusing the materials
on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present
matter does not pertain to a challenge to the land acquisition
process itself, but rather to an inter se dispute between the
awardees of Award No. 8 and Award No. 9. The said dispute
was rightly referred by the Land Acquisition Officer under
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the competent
court, and is currently pending as L.A. Case No. 318 of 1979
before the Land Acquisition Judge, Patna.
20. It is undisputed that the original awardees have
since passed away, but their legal heirs are still entitled to
pursue the matter.
21. In view of the aforesaid bakground, this writ
petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take
appropriate steps to trace and revive L.A. Case No. 318 of 1979
before the Trial Court, pursue adjudication on merits, and
thereafter seek realization of the compensation amount before
the Land Acquisition Judge in accordance with law. It is further
directed that at the time of final adjudication, the Land
Acquisition Court shall also consider and decide the issue of
interest payable on the compensation amount, in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
with the applicable provisions of law, in favour of the party
ultimately found entitled to the same.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08/05/2025
Transmission Date NA
