[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Basmatia Dvi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 16 February, 2026
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19607 of 2018
======================================================
Basmatia Dvi W/o Late Sita Singh R/o Village- Gavasagrah Tarari, P.S.-
Daudnagar, and District- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, RCD Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Bihar,
Patna
4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad
5. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad
6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Daudnagarm Aurangabad
7. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Daudnagar, Aurangabad
8. The Sub Registrar, office of the Registry, Sub Division Daudnagar,
Aurangabad
9. The Circle Officer, Circle Daudnagar, Aurangabad
10. The Then Anchal Amin on Deputation Circle Haspura, Aurangabad
11. The Senior Project Engineer, Division Gaya BRPNNLBihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raj Kishore Roy- Gp-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-02-2026
Heard Mr.Anirudh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for
the petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for setting aside the notice bearing 743,
744 and 745 dated 13.06.2018 served upon
the petitioners respectively whereby claim
Patna High Court CWJC No.19607 of 2018 dt.16-02-2026
2/9
has been made to return the excess payment
made in comparison of nature of the
acquired land under the perpetual lease
policy under Bihar Lease Policy, 2014.
3. The matter relates to construction of approach
road for the bridge on the Sone river between Daudnagar and
Nasriganj. The petitioner's land was also taken over for
construction. The State Government wanted to take over the
land under the Bihar Raiyati Land Lease Policy, 2014
(henceforth for short 'the Policy').
4. The Six Men Committee headed by the District
Magistrate, Aurangabad undertook a survey for the
categorization of the land and the proceeding dated 20.06.2016
duly signed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad amongst
the other held the land of the petitioner as residential.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner received the payment of
Rs. 57,00,000/- on 06.10.2016.
6. Two years later, the petitioner received the notice
vide letter no. 749 dated 13.06.2018 issued by the Senior
Project Engineer, Works Division, Gaya, according to which,
subsequently, another Six Men Committee was constituted by
the District Magistrate, Aurangabad which found the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.19607 of 2018 dt.16-02-2026
3/9
land to be agriculture. Accordingly, it held that instead of
57,00,000/-, the lady was entitled to only Rs.19,00,000/-. Thus,
by the said letter, demand for returning of Rs.38,00,000/- was
made.
(Annexure-5 to the petition)
7. Aggrieved, the present petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this
Court to the Schedule Part-II of 'the Policy' which records the
terms and conditions. Further, its Column-IV read as follows:
4. In case of an clerical or mathematical
error in calculation as to the amount of
compensation for the land mentioned in
Schedule-1, matter shall be referred to the
Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna, within six
month of the date of execution of the lease
and the decision taken by the Government
in the Department of Revenue and Land
Reforms, Bihar, Patna will be final.
9. He submits that only in case of clerical and
mathematical error in calculation on the amount of
compensation, the case could have been referred to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19607 of 2018 dt.16-02-2026
4/9
Revenue and Land Department, Patna which is/was also to be
done in next six months and the decision taken shall be final.
10. The submission is that admittedly, the payment
was made in the year 2016 pursuant to the ground
inspection/survey undertaken by a committee duly headed by
the District Magistrate, Aurangabad. The question is whether
later, another District Magistrate by constituting second
committee after the payments made can change its
categorization of the land made by the head of the district.
Further, when the same was not referred to the Revenue and
Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna within six months
whether it needs interference or not in view of the fact that it is
not any clerical or mathematical error.
11. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of
respondent nos. 04 and 05 and they have justified the decision
submitting that subsequent committee found the land to be
agriculture and accordingly, notice has been issued which needs
no interference.
12. It is to be noted that for the reasons best known,
the second enquiry report has not been brought on record in the
counter affidavit by the State respondent nor the same was
annexed alongwith the notice in question issued to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19607 of 2018 dt.16-02-2026
5/9
petitioner.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner with the help of
supplementary affidavit has submitted that in similar such
matters, the Patna High Court has set aside the notices issued by
the respondents and the details of the orders are as follows:
(i) Sanjay Kumar and Ors.vs. The
State and Ors (C.W.J.C. No. 17669 of
2018) disposed of on 03.03.2025;
(ii) C.W.J.C. No. 17470 of 2018
(Ramashray Sao vs. the State and Ors.
disposed of on 03.03.2025;
(iii) C.W.J.C. No. 1431 of of 2019
(Lahasia Kuer vs. the State of Bihar &
Ors) disposed of on 06.02.2025.
14. Paragraphs 05 to 07 of the order dated 06.02.2025
passed in Lahasia Kuer (supra) record as follows:
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19607 of 2018 dt.16-02-2026
6/9
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
mathematical error, as the authority, at
the time of fixing compensation, initially
observed that the land of the petitioner
was residential 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, 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19607 of 2018 dt.16-02-2026
7/9
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;
7. for the reasons mentioned above, the
Court finds merit in the petitioner's
argument, and thus the notice dated
13.06.2018
, bearing No: 748 (Annexure-
5), is hereby set aside.
15. Having heard the parties and after perusing the
records, the fact that emerges is/are that after the State
Government took a decision to take over the land of the affected
persons including the petitioner under 'the Policy', the District
Magistrate, Aurangabad under his chairmanship constituted a
Patna High Court CWJC No.19607 of 2018 dt.16-02-2026
committee. After an enquiry/survey was undertaken, the
committee amongst other categorized the lands of the affected
persons and the land of the petitioner was categorised as
residential. Once the committee headed by the District
Magistrate, Auranbagad stamped the said enquiry report vide
proceeding dated 20.06.2016, payments were made on
06.10.2016.
16. How and under what circumstance, the next
incumbent (District Magistrate, Aurangabad) reopened the
matter, constituted another committee and came to the
conclusion that it should have been agriculture and not
residential (which followed the notice) has not been explained.
18. Neither the minutes of the proceeding (by which
the District Magistrate, Aurangabad came to the conclusion after
enquiry that it is agriculture land and not residential) has been
provided to the petitioner with the notice nor annexed with the
counter affidavit.
19. In any case, once the earlier District Magistrate,
Aurangabad himself headed the committee and categorized the
land of the petitioner as residential, the next incumbent is/was
duty bound to record the reason for constituting another
committee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19607 of 2018 dt.16-02-2026
20. Further, once it came to a different finding, the
matter should have been referred to the Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Bihar. Instead, he authorized himself
and overruled the proceeding of the earlier committee dated
20.06.2016. In the opinion of the Court, the same cannot be
allowed. The coordinate bench by passing the orders (as
recorded earlier) has come to the same conclusion.
21. This takes the writ petition to only one
conclusion. The notice dated 13.06.2018 is illegal and needs
interference. Accordingly, ordered.
22. The notice vide no. 749 dated 13.06.2018 passed
by the Senior Project Engineer, Works Division, Gaya is
hereby set aside.
23. The writ petition is allowed. No cost.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.02.2026
Transmission Date
