Disposed¶24

Ram Naresh Singh v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC10 Nov 2025CWJC/20253/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation; residential versus agricultural land classification; Six Men Committee Report dated 03.05.17; D.F.C.C.I.L Arbitration Case No. 461 of 2018 (Chief Project Manager v. State of Bihar); writ of Mandamus; writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach appropriate authority/forum; expeditious conclusion direction; Patna High Court; Rajiv Roy, J; CWJC No.20253 of 2018; Aurangabad, Bihar; Mughalsarai/Varanasi rail project; decided 10-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter before the appropriate authority/forum if an order passed by the Arbitrator (in Arbitration Case No. 461 of 2018) is detrimental to his cause; any such petition to be taken to its logical conclusion at the earliest. ¶24

Ram Naresh Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation/award for his acquired land treating it as residential land (as per the Six Men Committee Report dated 03.05.17) rather than as agricultural land, by issuance of a writ of Mandamus.

¶18

Court's answer

In view of the pendency of the arbitration proceedings and the petitioner's non-filing of any reply since 2019, it would be appropriate that the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to agitate the matter before the appropriate authority/forum.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The liberty to agitate before the appropriate authority/forum is available to the petitioner if an order has been passed by the Arbitrator and the petitioner finds it detrimental to his cause.

¶26

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files any such petition before the appropriate authority/forum, the same has to be taken to its logical conclusion at the earliest.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J.), by order dated 10-11-2025 in CWJC No.20253 of 2018 (Ram Naresh Singh v. The Union of India & Ors.), disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus to pay compensation for the petitioner's acquired land treating it as residential land, as per the Six Men Committee Report dated 03.05.17, instead of the agricultural-land compensation already paid. The counter affidavit of Respondent nos. 5 and 6 (filed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, copy served 23.09.2019) disclosed that the Chief Project Manager, D.F.C.C.I.L, Mughalsarai had filed Arbitration Case No. 461 of 2018 (The Chief Project Manager Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) before the Arbitrator, D.F.C.C.I.L Project, Magadh Division, Gaya, which was sub judice. No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner despite service in 2019. The Court disposed of the writ petition granting the petitioner liberty to agitate the matter before the appropriate authority/forum if an order passed by the Arbitrator is detrimental to his cause, and directed that any such petition be taken to its logical conclusion at the earliest.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20253 of 2018

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ram Naresh Singh Son of Late Ram Bhelawan Singh, Resident of Village and P.O. and P.S.- Baran Chandra Bigha, District- Aurangabad.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union Of India.

¶7

D.R.M. Divisional Rail Manager, Mughalsarai, U.P.

¶8

Chief Project Officer, BFCC Suwarna Complex, Hyderabad Gate, Lanka, Varanasi.

¶9

The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

¶10

District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

¶11

District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad (GP-14) ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 10-11-2025 Heard the parties.

¶17

The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):-

¶18

A) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or writs, direction or directions commanding of Respondents to pay the compensation/Award of the petitioner land which is residential and situated in the midst of the village gobardhon bigha, Barun but the Respondents have paid the compensation of the acquired land of the Petitioner treating the same as Agriculture Land

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.20253 of 2018(2) dt.10-11-2025 2/3

¶20

whereas, from the report of the six Men Committee Report dated 03.05.17, it would appear that the land acquired is residential Land.

¶21

B) To pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶22

The counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent nos. 5 and 6 duly put on affidavit by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad has been filed, copy of which was served upon learned counsel for the petitioner on 23.09.2019. As per paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the said counter affidavit, the Chief Project Manager, D.F.C.C.I.L, Mughalsarai has filed an arbitration case before the Hon’ble Arbitrator, D.F.C.C.I.L Project, Magadh Division, Gaya in Arbitration Case No. 461 of 2018 (The Chief Project Manager Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) which at the filing of the counter affidavit is/was subjudice.

¶23

As recorded above, no reply has come on behalf of the petitioner, despite service of copy in the year 2019.

¶24

In that background, it would be appropriate that the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to agitate the

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.20253 of 2018(2) dt.10-11-2025 3/3

¶26

matter before the appropriate authority/forum, if an order has been passed by the Arbitrator and the petitioner finds it detrimental to his cause.

¶27

Needless to add, if the petitioner files any such petition before the appropriate authority/forum, the same has to be taken to its logical conclusion at an earliest.

¶28

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶29

Divyansh/-

¶30

Ram Naresh Singh v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Singh v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bibhaw Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate

Santosh Kumar Jha @ Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Srikant Sharma and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jai Narayan Yadav @ Jairam Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.