Patna High Court – Orders
Shreekant Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 20 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17739 of 2022
======================================================
1. Shreekant Yadav Son of Late Dasrath Yadav Resident of Village- Goasi,
Police Station- K. Nagar, District- Purnea.
2. Munna Yadav, Son of Late Baldeo Yadav Resident of Village- Goasi, Police
Station- K. Nagar, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ragib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Sr. Advocate (SC-25 )
Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, AC to SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
7 20-08-2025
This is a second round of litigation in respect of the
land acquisition matter under the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-
settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter described as “2013 Act”).
2. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners
have made the following prayers:-
“(a) To quash the order dated 29.03.2022
in L.A. Objection Case Nos.08 of 2019-20 and 19 of
2019-20 passed by the Respondent Collector,
whereby the objection raised by the petitioners
against under Section 15(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
2/182013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the
land held by the petitioners have been acquired for
the purpose of Civil Aviation situated contiguous to
south of Military Aerodrome, Purnea has been
rejected without even mentioning the objections
raised.
(b) During pendency of the writ petition
the respondent be restrained from taking possession
of the petitioner’s lands which have been notified
under Section 11(1) of the Act.”
3. The order dated 29.03.2022, which is impugned in
the instant writ petition is annexed with the writ petition as
Annexure-1. On perusal of the cause title of Annexure-1, it is
found that the petitioner No.2 filed Land Acquisition Objection
Case No.19 of 2019-20 (State Vs. Munna Yadav), by filing an
objection against the acquisition and failure on the part of the
Authority to calculate fair compensation.
4. Subsequent to filing of the instant writ petition in
the year, 2022, the petitioners filed supplementary affidavit and
reply to the counter affidavit filed by the State-Respondents but
the copy of the written objection under Section 15(1) has not
been filed in the record of the instant writ petition.
5. Therefore, I do not have any other alternative but to
rely upon paragraph No.4 of the impugned order dated
29.03.2022, where the grounds of objection was summarized by
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
3/18
the Collector, Purnea in the following words:-
“vkifRrdrkZ }kjk izLrqr tokc dk voyksdu fd;k
x;k rFkk muds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lqukA mudk eq[; :i ls
dFku gS fd bl tehu dk vf/kxzg.k dj fy;s tkus ls vkifRrdrkZ
Hkwfeghu@y?kqd`’kd dh Js.kh esa vk tk,saxs rFkk tehu fNu tkus ls
muds jkstxkj dk eq[; lk/ku lekIr gks tk,xk ftlls ifjokj ds
Hkj.k&iks’k.k esa dfBukbZ gksxh”
6. Thus, the petitioners/objectors raised objection to
the effect that if the land in question is acquired, he would be
reduced to the class of landless/marginal farmer and his main
source of income through agriculture would be destroyed. He
would not be able to maintain his family in such case.
7. Section 15 of 2013 Act states :-
“15. Hearing of objections.-(1) Any
person interested in any land which has been
notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, as being
required or likely to be required for a public
purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the
publication of the preliminary notification, object
to-
(a) the area and suitability of land
proposed to be acquired;
(b) justification offered for public
purpose;
(c) the findings of the Social Impact
Assessment report.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
4/18(2) Every objection under sub-section
(1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and
the Collector shall give the objector an
opportunity of being heard in person or by any
person authorised by him in this behalf or by an
Advocate and shall, after hearing all such
objections and after making such further
inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either
make a report in respect of the land which has
been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, or
make different reports in respect of different parcels
of such land, to the appropriate Government,
containing his recommendations on the objections,
together with the record of the proceedings held by
him along with a separate report giving therein the
approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as
to the number of affected families likely to be
resettled, for the decision of that Government.
(3) The decision of the appropriate
Government on the objections made under sub-
section (2) shall be final.”
8. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners by Mr.
Ragib Ahsan, learned Senior Counsel that the Collector had no
Authority to dispose of the objection filed by the petitioners
under Section 15(1) of 2013 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 15
clearly states that when an objection is filed under Section 15(1)
of 2013 Act, the Collector shall give opportunity to the objector
of being heard either personally or by his authorized agent or
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
5/18
advocate and after hearing such objection and after making such
further enquiry, he shall either make a report in respect of the
land, which has been notified under Sub-section (1) of Section
11 or make different reports in respect of different persons of
such land to the appropriate government.
9. Thus, it is contended that the Collector had no right
to dispose of the objection raised by the petitioners. Under the
statute they are authorized to referred the objection to the proper
government, as the Collector failed to comply with the
requirement of Section 15(2) of 2013 Act, the impugned order is
bad and liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. Second leave of argument advanced by the
learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners are that the
petitioners and another previously filed CWJC No.22386 of
2019 praying for quashment of the order dated 11.09.2019
passed by the Collector, whereby the objection raised under
Section 15(1) of 2013 Act against acquisition of the land of the
petitioners was rejected by the Collector without even
mentioning the nature of the objection.
11. The Division Bench of this Court presided over by
the then the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, while disposing of the
above-mentioned writ petition held as hereunder :-
“We notice that acquisition proceedings
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
6/18relate to expansion of the airport at Purnia. The
proceeding commenced in the year 2013, for one
reason or the other, be it on account of pendency of the
present petition or the interim orders passed therein,
the project stands inordinately delayed.
There is no doubt that in law, petitioners
have a right to receive compensation which is just, fair
and reasonable but it is also the duty of the State to
ensure that projects of vital importance are not held up
only on account of passing of interim orders by
various courts. Yes, Courts cannot be obstructionist in
any developmental activity, but then the State also has
to be vigilant. When an identical matter stood decided
in February, 2020 itself, application for hearing and
disposal of the instant petition, on similar lines could
have been filed. It was not done so. Order of interim
injunction was never sought to be modified.
We notice that the development of airport at
Purina is necessarily required in national interest for in
the war of 1962, the aerodrome at that place was
utilized to its optimum utility.
As such, as jointly prayed for, we quash and
set aside the order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the
Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, rejecting the
petitioners’ objection petition (Annexure-1).
Further direction is issued to the petitioners
to make themselves available in the office of
respondent no.2, namely, the Collector, Purnea on
14.03.2022 on which date, the parties shall place on
record not only a copy of this order, but also any
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
7/18material which they seek to rely upon. If the
authorized authority to adjudicate the petition is some
other person then the Collector shall ensure
compliance of direction.
We direct respondent no. 2, namely, the
District Magistrate, Purnia to either himself or ensure
the authorized person to conclude the proceedings
positively within a period of 45 days, unless, of
course, the law mandates it to be done otherwise. Any
which way, it must be completed within the prescribed
time limit.
We also direct the Chief Secretary,
Government of Bihar to ensure that all appropriate
sanctions and approvals, if so required, are accorded
within a time bound period. Learned Advocate General
states that the order shall be communicated.
Needles to add, petitioners have a right to
receive compensation which is just, fair and
reasonable in terms of the decision rendered by
Hon’ble the Apex Court in Indore Development
Authority versus Manoharlal and others, reported in
(2020) 8 SCC 129.”
12. Close perusal of the order passed in CWJC
No.22386 of 2019 shows that the Division Bench of this Court
was alive to note that while petitioners have a right to receive
compensation, which is just, fair and reasonable, but it is also
the duty of State to ensure that projects of vital importance are
not held up only on account of passing of the interim orders by
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
8/18
various Courts. It is also observed that the courts cannot be
obstructionist in any developmental activity, but the State also
has to be vigilant.
13. Therefore, public purpose of acquisition of the
land in question was affirmatively taken into consideration by
the Division Bench in CWJC No.22386 of 2019.
14. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf
of the petitioners refers to Rule-6 of RFCTLARR Rules, 2015.
Rules-6 runs thus:-
“6. Hearing of objections.- (1) The Collector
shall issue a notice for inviting objections in FORM III
and after hearing all objections and making enquiry as
provided under sub-section (2) of section 15 shall submit
a report along with his recommendations on the
objections to the appropriate Government for decision.
(2) The report of the Collector shall include
the following:-
(a) assessment as to whether the proposed
acquisition serves public purpose;
(b) whether the extent of land proposed for
acquisition is the absolute bare-minimum extent needed
for the project;
(c) whether land acquisition at an alternate
place has been considered and found not feasible;
(d) there is no unutilised land which has been
previously acquired in the area;
(e) the land, if any, acquired earlier and
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
9/18remained unutilised, is used for such public purpose and
recommendations in respect thereof;
(f) recommendations on the objections;
(g) record of proceedings;
(h) approximate cost of land acquisition in
cases where Social Impact Assessment has been
exempted.”
15. Referring to the above Rule, it is vehemently
urged by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners
that the objection raised by the petitioners can only be decided
by the appropriate government and not by the Collector.
Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be
quashed.
16. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the State-
Respondents, on the other hand on the other hand, draws my
attention to reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the instant
writ petition. I have already quoted the reliefs herein before and
therefore, it is not necessary to record the reliefs at the risk of
repetition.
17. Referring to the reliefs, it is submitted by the
learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the
impugned order was passed on 29th March, 2022 on the basis of
the Division Bench’s order dated 9th March 2022 in CWJC No.
22386 of 2019. The Division Bench specifically directed that
the objection filed by the petitioners were to be disposed of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
10/18
within 45 days from the date of communication of the order.
Thus, the Collector, did not commit any error in passing the
impugned order.
18. It is further submitted by the learned senior
counsel for the respondents that notification under Section 11(1)
of 2013 Act for acquisition of land for the purpose of
construction of civil airport was published on 03rd June 2019,
declaration was made on 15th October 2019. On 10th January
2020 Award was prepared, requisitioning officer delivered
possession of the acquired land to the Acquiring Authority
during the period between 25th April 2022 and 29th October
2022. Since, the petitioners did not accept the compensation
amount, entire money was deposited on 09.10.2020 and 25 th
April 2022 to the LARRAA CPIRT. Thus, the acquisition
process was completed.
19. In such circumstance, the objection filed by the
petitioners on the ground that on acquisition of land, they would
be reduced to a landless/marginal farmer cannot be considered.
Moreover, the instant writ petition is vitiated by delay and
latches. In support of his contention, they refers to a decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v.
State of Rajasthan, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 695.
20. In the aforesaid case, a preliminary objection was
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
11/18
taken by the respondents to the effect that the appeal is liable to
be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches on the part of
the appellants to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Secondly, acquisition of land cannot be challenged after taking
over of the possession and after the Award having become final.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the decisions in
Municipal Corpn., Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development
Investment Co. (P) Ltd., reported in (1996) 11 SCC 501 and
relied on paragraphs nos. 29 and 35 of the said judgment, which
are reproduced below:-
“29. It is thus well-settled law that when
there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and
when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings
have become final, the Court should be loath to quash
the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt,
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution to quash the notification under Section
4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be
exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic
consideration. When the award was passed and
possession was taken, the Court should not have
exercised its power to quash the award which is a
material factor to be taken into consideration before
exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that
no third party rights were created in the case is hardly
a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the
High Court was not right in interfering with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
12/18discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.
35. It is trite to observe that before the
planning proposals for Bandra-Kurla Complex were
finalised and published by the State of Maharashtra
on 3-5-1979, the requisite statutory procedure of
Section 40 sub-section 3(d), was necessarily followed
by the Special Planning Authority and that happened
between 7-3-1977 and 3-5-1979. To recapitulate as
per Section 40 sub-section 3(d) of the MRTP Act
before submitting planning proposals to the State
Government, the Special Planning Authority has to
carry out survey of the land and to prepare existing
land-use map of the area, and to prepare and publish
the draft proposal for the lands within its jurisdiction
together with a notice in the Official Gazette and
local newspapers in such manner as the Special
Planning Authority may determine. It has also to
invite objections and suggestions from the public
within the period of not more than 30 days from the
date of notice in the Official Gazette. Thus these
proposals are to be published not only in the Official
Gazette but in local newspapers also. It is, therefore,
obvious that the proposals for changing the
reservations of the lands concerned in the area and
shifting of the sewage plant from Block ‘H’ to Block
‘A’ in the planning proposal for Bandra-Kurla
Complex were published by the Special Planning
Authority prior to 3-5-1979 and after 7-3-1977 when
that authority was constituted. When such proposals
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
13/18got published in local newspapers it is too much for
the respondent-writ petitioners to submit that they
never knew about these proposals and they came to
know about these proposals only on 26-5-1983 when
public notice was issued in Times of India regarding
the approval of these proposals by the State
Government. Even assuming that Respondents 1 and
2 might not have read the Government Gazette at
least notices issued in local newspapers would not
have escaped their attention in 1979. By 1979,
therefore, Respondents 1 and 2 must have known or
with due diligence would have known that there was
a proposal to de-reserve their land from the
earmarked purpose of extension of sewerage
treatment plant of the Municipal Corporation. They
may not object to such a favourable proposal but
obviously they should be inquisitive enough to know
as early as between 1977 and 1979 that the cloud on
their land was getting lifted. Therefore, they would
have been put to the enquiry as to what happened to
this proposal and what was the final outcome thereof.
Instead of bothering anyway about it, they just
slumbered on and supported their claims for
compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer
under Section 9 of the Act, joined issues thereon in
1979 and onwards and allowed the award to be
rendered as late as on 24-2-1983. Not only that they
also allowed the possession to be taken by the
Corporation on 4-3-1983 though of course it was
symbolic possession as they were tenants in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
14/18possession. To add to this indolent conduct and
connivance on the part of the respondent-writ
petitioners, in these very acquisition proceedings,
they filed reference application under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act on 7-4-1983 claiming
additional compensation. Thus up to 7-4-1983 they
had no objection to their land which had already got
de-reserved for the extension of the sewage plant
from being acquired and they concentrated on
compensation only. It is their own case that even on
10-1-1986 there was a meeting of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Works Committee and in that
meeting the members present had asked the Dy.
Municipal Commissioner to make statement on
certain queries raised by him and one of the queries
was about absence of proposals to have extension of
Sewage Purification Plant, Dharavi. This also shows
that Respondents 1 and 2 were fully alive to the fact
that there was no scope for extension of Dharavi
Sewage Plant on their land. Despite all these facts
within the knowledge of Respondents 1 and 2 they sat
on the fence and allowed the acquisition proceedings
to continue and reach their terminus and even after
award was passed and possession was taken by the
Municipal Corporation, they staked their claims only
for additional compensation. It is only thereafter that
they filed writ petition on 14-7-1983. Such a belated
writ petition, therefore, was rightly rejected by the
learned Single Judge on the ground of gross delay
and laches. The respondent-writ petitioners can be
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
15/18said to have waived their objections to the acquisition
on the ground of extinction of public purpose by their
own inaction, lethargy and indolent conduct. The
Division Bench of the High Court had taken the view
that because of their inaction no vested rights of third
parties are created. That finding is obviously incorrect
for the simple reason that because of the indolent
conduct of the writ petitioners land got acquired,
award was passed, compensation was handed over to
various claimants including the landlord. Reference
applications came to be filed for larger compensation
by claimants including writ petitioners themselves.
The acquired land got vested in the State Government
and the Municipal Corporation free from all
encumbrances as enjoined by Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Thus right to get more compensation
got vested in diverse claimants by passing of the
award, as well as vested right was created in favour
of the Bombay Municipal Corporation by virtue of
the vesting of the land in the State Government for
being handed over to the Corporation. All these
events could not be wished away by observing that no
third party rights were created by them. The writ
petition came to be filed after all these events had
taken place. Such a writ petition was clearly stillborn
due to gross delay and laches. I, therefore,
respectfully agree with the conclusion to which my
learned brother Ramaswamy, J. has reached that on
the ground of delay and laches the writ petition is
required to be dismissed and the appeal has to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
16/18allowed on that ground.”
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also relied on the
decision in the State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi, reported in
(1996) 6 SCC 445 and Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v.
Shah Hyder Beig, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 48 and came to the
conclusion that the writ petition having being filed after taking
over the possession and the Award having become final, the
same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
latches. Accordingly, the orders of the learned Single Judge and
that of the Division Bench are affirmed to the extent of
dismissal of the writ petition and the special appeal without
going into the merits thereof. Same view was reiterated in a
subsequent judgment in Andhra Pradesh Industrial
Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. v. Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao,
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 797.
22. Thus, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel
on behalf of the petitioners that at this stage Section 15(1) or
15(2) of 2013 Act is not applicable and only remedy available to
the petitioners are by way of reference to the authority under
Section 64 of the 2013 Act, challenging the Compensation and
Award.
23. Having heard the learned senior counsels for the
parties and on careful perusal of the entire materials on record,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
17/18
including the Division Bench judgment, passed in CWJC No.
22386 of 2019, this Court finds that the Division Bench directed
respondent no.2, namely, the District Magistrate, Purnea to
either himself or ensure the authorized person to conclude the
proceedings positively within a period of 45 days, unless, of-
course, the law mandates it to be done otherwise. In any way, it
must be completed within the prescribed time limit (emphasis
implied).
24. When Section 15(2) of 2013 Act read with Rule-6
clearly states that an objection is required to be disposed of by
the appropriate government, the Collector had no power to
reject the objection vide impugned order dated 29th March 2022.
25. I am not unmindful to note that the process of
acquisition is complete and only the case is pending for
disbursement of compensation. On perusal of the impugned
order, this Court also finds that no objection was raised by the
petitioners within the parameters of Section 15(1)(a) to (c).
26. Be that as it may, he is not the competent person
to reject the application. It is the appropriate Government, who
is empowered to reject the application. The duty of the Collector
is to make an inquiry on the objection made by the petitioners
and to refer the matter along with his report to the appropriate
Government. Since, the process as contemplated in Section 15
Patna High Court CWJC No.17739 of 2022(7) dt.20-08-2025
18/18
of 2013 Act and Rule-6, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed.
27. At the same time, this Court makes it clear that the
petitioners cannot raise any objection with regard to the
acquisition of the land in question, which has already been
handed over to the Acquiring Authority.
28. The appropriate Government shall only consider
as to whether the possession of the petitioners would be reduced
to a landless/marginal farmer after acquisition of their land and
in such case beside the compensation, the appropriate
Government shall also take steps for rehabilitation of the
petitioners. The entire process shall be completed within 45
days from the date of communication of this order.
29. With the above order and to the above extent, the
writ petition is allowed on contest. There shall, however, be no
order as to cost.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
mdrashid/-
U