Shiv Narain Pd. Mishra vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 30 August, 2025

Patna High Court – Orders

Shiv Narain Pd. Mishra vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 30 August, 2025

Author: Rajiv Roy

Bench: Rajiv Roy

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.134 of 2017
                 ======================================================
                 Shiv Narain Pd. Mishra son of Late Ram Sevak Mishra, Resident of Village
                 Chand Sarai, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali.

                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State Of Bihar and Ors
           2.    The Director, Land Acquisition, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Ministry of
                 Revenue and Land Refor
           3.    The Competent Authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali at
                 Hajipur.
           4.    The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur.
           5.    The Circle Officer, Hajipur Sadar, District Vaishali at Hajipur.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr. Shivji Singh, Adv.
                 For the Respondent/s   :        Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, G.P-14
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   30-08-2025

Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the

following relief(s):

(i) to hold and declare that the
land measuring an area of 1.24 Acre of
Daulatpur Dewariya Mauza, 1.2 Acre of
Dighi Kala Mauza and 2.63 Acre of Chak
Sharifabad Mauza acquired by the
Respondents for the purpose of construction
of Industrial Training Institute at Hajipur
(hereinafter referred to as I.T.I.) contrary to
the provisions of section 17(4) of the Land
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as
Patna High Court CWJC No.134 of 2017(3) dt.30-08-2025
2/3

the Act) which have been wrongly imparted
the emergency provision by the Respondents
concerned only to deprive them of
opportunity to object;

(ii) to hold and declare that
depriving these Petitioner for filing an
objection under the provisions of section 5A
of the Act against whom lands have been
acquired under the provision of section 17(4)
of the Act by the Respondents concerned is
completely illegal, errornous, malafide and
malicious and colourable exercise of power;

(iii) to issue order/orders,
direction/directions or a writ/writs in the
nature of mandamus commanding upon the
Respondents concerned to determine
compensation and make payment to
Petitioner compensation as per the provision
of section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabiliation ad Resettlement Act, 1913 as
in the case of others whose lands have also
been acquinred under the same notification
under section 11 of the Act;

(iv) to issue an order/ orders,
direction/directions or a writ/writs in the
nature of mandamus commanding upon the
Respondents concerned to calculate the
amount of compensation on the basis of
valuation as on 24.01.2014 as in the case of
Patna High Court CWJC No.134 of 2017(3) dt.30-08-2025
3/3

other persons whose lands have been
acquired for the same purpose as per orders
of this Hon’ble Court dated 24.06.2014
passed in C.W.J.C.No. 23984 of 2013 as
provided under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 in favour of these Petitioners who
have already received part amount of
compensation under protest against their
respective lands which had been acquired by
the Respondents for the construction of I.T.I.
at Hajipur, Vaishali.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

matter has become infructuous and as such, he may be permitted

to withdraw the petition.

4. Accordingly, disposed of as infructuous.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-

U