Patna High Court – Orders
Arun Kumar Ajad vs The State Of Bihar on 7 August, 2025
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10840 of 2025
======================================================
1. Arun Kumar Ajad, son of Yogendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Vill-
Laxminia, P.S.-Gamharia, District-Madhepura.
2. Rita Rani, wife of Arun Kumar Ajad, Resident of Vill-Laxminia, P.S.-
Gamharia, District-Madhepura.
3. Anjani Kumar, son of Niranjan Prasad Yadav, resident of Mission Road
Bhirkhi, P.S.-Madhepura, District-Madhepura.
4. Pankaj Kumar, son of Devendra Kumar, resident of Vill-Baihari, P.S.-
Singheswar, District-Madhepura.
5. Chandramani, Wife of Dilip Kumar, resident of Vill-Gahumani, P.S.-
Singheswar, District-Madhepura.
6. Priti Kumari, Wife of Shambhu Kumar, resident of Vill-Bishanpur Korlahi,
P.S.-Kumarkhand, District-Madhepura.
7. Pratima Devi @ Pratima Sinha, Wife of Surendra Narayan Sinha, resident of
Lahari Tola Pani Tanki, P.S.-Madhepura, District-Madhepura.
8. Pratibha Sinha, Wife of Sushil Kumar Sinha, resident of Kayastha Tola,
Ward No. 28, P.S.-Saharsa, District-Saharsa.
9. Shweta Kumari, wife of Akhilesh Kumar, resident of Azad Nagar Ward No.
9, P.S.-Madhepura, District-Madhepura.
10. Nidhi Kumari, wife of Prakash Kumar Mallik, resident of Krishnapuri, Ward
No. 4, P.S.-Madhepura, District-Madhepura.
11. Nitish Kumar, Son of Rananand Verma, resident of Pathraha, Ward No. 4,
P.S.-Madhepura, District-Madhepura.
12. Rananand Verma, Son of Braj Bihari Prasad, resident of Jagjivan Path, Ward
No. 13, P.S.-Madhepura, District-Madhepura.
13. Prabhat Kumar Sah, Son of Satyanarayan Sah, resident of Sant Awadh
College, Ward No. 4, P.S.-Madhepura, District-Madhepura.
14. Ramvilash Kumar, Son of Narayan Yadav, resident of Vill-Paharpur, P.S.-
Sour Bazar, District-Saharsa.
15. Santosh Kumar, son of Birendra Narayan Mehta, resident of Pama, Ward
No. 7, P.S.-Sour Bazar, District-Saharsa.
16. Pintu Kumar, Son of Raj Kishor Yadav, resident of Gadhia Balam, P.S.-
Madheprua, District-Madhepura.
17. Pinki Kumari, Wife of Mithilesh Kumar, resident of Ward No. 13, P.S.-
Madhepura, District-Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and
Land Reforms (Directorate of Land Acquisition) Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Madhepura.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10840 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025
2/9
3. The Additional District Collector, Madhepura.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhepura.
5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhepura.
6. The Circle Officer, Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushant Praveer- Advocate
Ms. Sushmita Sharma- Advocate
Ms. Shivalika Sinha- Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad-Government Pleader (7)
Mr. Sanjay Kumar- AC to GP-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-08-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned AC to GP-7 for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
in sum and substance, the writ application has been filed for
quashing the notification contained in Memo 1580 dated
01.09.2011 issued by the Department of Revenue and Land
Reforms, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Government of
Bihar, Patna, so far it relates to the petitioners whereby and
whereunder the Government has notified the acquisition of the
land of the petitioners (along with other land) by invoking the
urgency clause for construction of Police Line under Section
17(1) of the Bihar Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as L.A. 1894) and thereby
dispensing with mandate of Section 5(A) of the L. A. Act, 1894
under Section 17(4) of the L. A. Act, 1894.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10840 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025
3/9
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that no doubt, the land in dispute in the
instant writ application was acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act by invoking the emergency clause, but then, actual
possession of the land from the petitioners was never taken, nor
any notice under Section 12(2) of the L. A. Act, 1894 was issued
requiring the petitioners to claim their compensation, nor the
compensation amount was deposited with the appropriate
authority, as such, it is submitted that despite land being
acquired in the Year 2011, the possession was never taken, nor
compensation was paid. It is next submitted that in the Year
2013, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein
after referred to as ‘Act, 2013’) was promulgated with effect
from 01.01.2014. It is submitted that in the event, if the
authority still intends to acquire the land of the petitioners, in
that event, now they will have to resort to the provisions of the
Act, 2013. It is next submitted that the case was mentioned for
being taken up out of turn on the ground that the authorities
recently descended on the so called acquired land and started
marking the land and threatened the petitioners with
dispossession even without paying compensation in terms of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10840 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025
4/9
Act, 2013.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners next submits
that the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and
others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 overruled the earlier decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
and others, (2014) 3 SCC 183. It is further submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority (Supra) at Para-365 and 366 held:-
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183]
is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which
Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183]
has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353]
cannot be said to be laying down good law, is
overruled and other decisions following the same are
also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v.
Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with
Patna High Court CWJC No.10840 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025
5/9respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether
“or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not
placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too
cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the
present judgment.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
answer the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a)
in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date
of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined
under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed
within the window period of five years excluding the
period covered by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has
not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2)
between possession and compensation has to be read
as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land
acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for
five years or more prior to commencement of the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.10840 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025
6/9Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken then
there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main
part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a
deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of
non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in
case it has not been deposited with respect to majority
of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as
on the date of notification for land acquisition under
Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled,
interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted.
Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result
in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of
non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for
five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act
has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of
notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10840 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025
7/9
1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered
the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or
non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation
to pay is complete by tendering the amount under
Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not
part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under
the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is
by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once
award has been passed on taking possession under
Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there
is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act, as once possession has been taken there is no
lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2)
Patna High Court CWJC No.10840 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025
8/9
providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are
applicable in case authorities have failed due to their
inaction to take possession and pay compensation for
five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force,
in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the
authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be
excluded in the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not
give rise to new cause of action to question the legality
of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to
question the legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to
invalidate acquisition.”
5. It is next submitted that in the instant case also
despite land being acquired by invoking emergency provisions
the award has not been prepared nor possession taken nor
compensation paid, but then, in terms of Section 24(1)(A) of the
L.A. Act, 2013, the proceeding of acquisition will not lapse and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10840 of 2025(3) dt.07-08-2025
9/9
if the authorities still intend to acquire the land, in that event,
compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the
Act, 2013. It is also submitted that another issue which arises
for consideration is whether merely because emergency
provision was invoked for acquiring the land and thereafter, no
notification under Section 6 of the L. A. Act was issued whether
the same would render the land acquisition proceeding resorted
in the Year 2011 vulnerable.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State seeks four weeks’ time for filing counter-affidavit.
7. Put up this case on 22.09.2025.
8. It is made clear that notification contained in Memo
No.1580 dated 01.09.2011 issued by the Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby the
land of the petitioners were acquired invoking emergency
provision shall remain stayed until the writ application is finally
adjudicated by this Court.
9. It is further made clear that the stay will operate
only in favour of the petitioners herein.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U