Patna High Court – Orders
Mahendra Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 7 August, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9965 of 2019
======================================================
1. Mahendra Singh Son of late Ram Prasad Singh Resident of Village-
Fatehpur, P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna.
2. Saryug Singh Son of Late Ram Parikshan Singh Resident of Village-
Fatehpur, P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna.
3. Shankar Singh Son of Late Ramdeo Singh Resident of Village- Fatehpur,
P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna.
4. Dilip Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Bali Singh Resident of Village-
Fatehpur, P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Collector Patna.
3. The Director Land Acquisition, Bihar.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer Patna.
5. The Municipal Commissioner Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Advocate
Mr. Subroteswar De, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan (SC-25 )
For the PMC : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 07-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Senior counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Patna
Municipal Corporation.
Re:- I.A. No.01 of 2021
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
present I.A. No.01 of 2021 has been filed for substitution of
petitioner no.1 who died during pendency of this application
leaving behind his heir whose details are mentioned in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9965 of 2019(3) dt.07-08-2025
2/5
paragraph no.3 (i) of the present I.A.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the State has no
objection in allowing the present I.A. No.01 of 2021.
3. As such, the present I.A. No.01 of 2021 is hereby
allowed.
4. The Registry is hereby directed to do the needful
and take appropriate steps for deleting the name of petitioner no.
1 from the array of parties in the writ petition and, in his place,
insert the name of his legal heir in the writ petition as well as in
the cause title page also, as mentioned in paragraph no. 3(i) of
I.A. No. 01 of 2021.
Re:- I.A. No.02 of 2025 & C.W.J.C. No.9965 of
2019
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
present I.A. No.02 of 2025 has been filed directing the
respondents to return the respective land to the petitioners as the
petitioners now wants to return back their land to the original
owners and petitioners are ready to refund the respective amount
received with interest.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the State raised a
preliminary objection on I.A. No.02 of 2025 and submits that
the present writ petition has been filed for directing the
respondents to re-determine the value of the proposed land
Patna High Court CWJC No.9965 of 2019(3) dt.07-08-2025
3/5
under acquisition of the petitioners in the light of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013)
(hereinafter referred to as ‘RFCTLARR Act, 2013‘) and make
payment to the petitioners of the re-determined value of the land
as per sections 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30 of the said act. Senior
counsel submits that by virtue of the present I.A., counsel for the
petitioners has started raising a new plea and new relief at all
which has nothing to do with the present writ petition. He
submits that it is a separate cause of action and the said separate
cause of action cannot be clubbed with the writ petition. Senior
counsel further submits that the petitioners have earlier moved
before this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.712 of 2012 which
was disposed off vide order dated 08.03.2017 directing the
Collector, Patna and the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna
to re-determine the value of the proposed land keeping in mind
the provision of new Act, particularly, section 26 of the above
stated Act.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the State further
submits that thereafter, the petitioners filed M.J.C. petition
bearing M.J.C. No.3687 of 2017 in which vide order dated
19.12.2018, this Hon’ble Court has disposed off the contempt
petition and observed that the re-determination of value of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9965 of 2019(3) dt.07-08-2025
4/5
land has been made and order of the Court has already been
complied with and if, the petitioners are not satisfied with re-
determination as done by the concerned authorities, they have
right to challenge the re-determination as done by the concerned
opposite parties before the appropriate forum in accordance with
law.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the State submits that
after passing the order in M.J.C petition on 19.12.2018, the
appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to avail their rights
under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and not before
the Writ Court. Senior counsel submits that the present writ
petition has been filed in the year 2019 and after a lapse of about
6 years, I.A. No.02 of 2025 has been filed demanding a separate
relief itself. He submits that the present writ petition itself is not
maintainable and therefore, there is no question of allowing the
I.A. No.02 of 2025.
5. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court
that the petitioners had previously moved before this Hon’ble
Court for the relief sought herein, in C.W.J.C. No. 712 of 2012,
in which order for re-determination has been made before the
appropriate forum. The order for re-determination has been
further tested in M.J.C. No.3687 of 2017, in which final order
has been passed to challenge the same before the appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.9965 of 2019(3) dt.07-08-2025
5/5
forum in accordance with law. But, in-spite of requesting for
price enhancement under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013, petitioners have directly moved before this Hon’ble Court.
6. Therefore, the order which has been passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 712 of 2012 and thereafter tested on the points of
compliance in M.J.C. No.3687 of 2017, has become res-judicata
for the petitioners and therefore, this writ petition is not
maintainable.
7. The question raised in I.A. No.02 of 2025 relating
to return of land to petitioners cannot be tested or demanded in
the present writ petition, as it is a separate cause of action itself,
about which the petitioners are at liberty to challenge before the
appropriate forum in accordance with law if, advised so.
8. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed along
with the I.A. No.02 of 2025 with liberty to petitioners to pray for
relief of I.A. No.2 of 2025 by way of treating it a separate cause
of action before the appropriate forum.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U