Petitioner sought enhancement of land acquisition award compensation by 20%. Court rejected delay in joining similar situate beneficiaries as afterthought and found award unaffected by later policy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9001 of 2016
======================================================
Yadunandan Prasad s/o late Dilchand Rai resident of village - Kanhaipur P.S. - Mokama, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, Advocate Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 Mr. Abhinave Alok, AC to AAG-13 For the NTPC : Shri Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Narayan, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER
6 15-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
following relief:
“That this writ application is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for commanding the respondents authorities regarding enhancement of Award of 20% of acquired land having an area of 1.37937 Acre of land situated at Mauza Sarhan Part-
Patna High Court CWJC No.9001 of 2016(6) dt.15-03-2024 2/4
1, Thana No. 13, P.S.- Mokama, DistrictPatna, Award no. 55 "A" passed in L.A. Case No. 20/2005-06, bearing land described as
hereunder:-
| Khata No. | Plot No. | Area |
|---|---|---|
| 107 | 1061 |
0.60937 |
| 94 | 1064 |
0.42 |
| 95 | 1066 |
0.35 |
Total = 1.37937 Acre”
Patna High Court CWJC No.9001 of 2016(6) dt.15-03-2024 3/4
“10. That it is further submitted that the circular dated 20.11.07 clearly stated that a report regarding number of raiyat voluntarily giving their land was to be mentioned in the proposal to be sent to the Government for seeking Government order u/s- 7/17 (1) of the L.A Act. It clearly indicates that affidavit from the concerned land owner for voluntarily giving their land is mandatory. However it is clarified that in the present case the circular under reference is not applicable as the proposal u/s-7/17 (1) of the L.A Act was sent to the Government on 01.06.2006 and the Government order was issued on 16.09.2006 itself i.e. prior to coming in to existence of the aforesaid policy. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for payment of 60% solatium.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.9001 of 2016(6) dt.15-03-2024 4/4
the State Authorities.
much less the petitioner.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation under a new policy for land acquired under an earlier order.
Whether time should be granted to obtain names of similar situate beneficiaries to support the enhancement claim.
YADUNANDAN PRASAD
STATE OF BIHAR
RAJIV ROY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
