Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1699 of 2025

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

Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Yadav son of Bhagwan Prasad @ Bhagwan Yadav resident of Pakri, Punpun, P.S. Punpun, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Collector, Patna

The District land Acquisition Officer, Patna

¶12

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Patna Sadar, Patna.

¶13

The Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif, District Patna.

¶14

The National Highway Authority of India, through its project Director, Bihar Region, Patna.

¶15

Dharmendra Kumar Singh S/O- Jagat Singh Resident of Village -Chihut old PS- Phulwari, New PS- Parsa Bazar, District -Patna

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. J. S. Arora, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12) For the NHAI : Mrs. Ankita, Advocate ======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶19

3 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. J. S. Arora, learned Senior counsel for the

¶20

petitioner, Mrs. Ankita, learned counsel for the NHAI and learned counsel for the State.

¶21

The present writ petition has been preferred for grant of following reliefs:-

¶22

“ I. For commanding the respondent to act in terms of the order issued by letter dated 07.10.2024, as contained in AnnexureP/12 and to get the land acquired out of the petitioner’s land, measured and demarcated at

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.1699 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026 2/5

¶24

site as per their order dated 07.10.2024 passed in measurement record no. 277/2024-25 and thereby revise/correct the award prepared in the name of the petitioner and accordingly to prepare a fresh revised award regarding the acquired land of the petitioner as detailed in Para 5 of the writ application and to receive back excess money paid to the petitioner.

¶25

II. During the pendency of the writ application with regard to the unacquired land out of 5.5 Kathas of Plot No. 359 in question, the Respondents be directed to maintain Status quo till the direction is made in between the said unacquired land, and the acquired land is made by the Respondent authorities.

¶26

III. Also for any other relief to which the petitioner so found entitled in the eye of law or in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

The petitioner claims to be land owner having

¶28

following details, Mauza- 78, Thana No. 14, Khata No. 26, Khesra- 359, Area-21.875 under Phulwarisharif circle in the district of Patna.

¶29

The land was taken/acquired for Patna- Gaya four lane, award prepared and payments made. There is no dispute on the facts that the petitioner received payment for 5 ½ plot by the total area of the land which is/are 7 Kathas.

¶30

The dispute arose when an Amin, Amrendra Kumar

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.1699 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026 3/5

¶32

Pandey, on 15.08.2024 gave a report that while 3 Kathas 7 dhur of the land has been taken over for the construction of four lane, the rest 3 Katha 13 dhur remains. This followed the petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction claiming that since the acquisition is only 3 Kathas 7 dhur, though he has received payment of 5 ½ Kathas., minus 3 Kathas 7 dhurs, the rest of amount be taken back by the respondents and he be given possession of 3 Kathas 13 dhur.

¶33

A counter affidavit has come on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5 duly signed by the Circle Officer, Phulwarisharf, Patna and learned State counsel has straightway taken this Court to another report dated 04.04.2025 jointly submitted by the Amin of the Phulwarisharif Circle Office and also the Amin of NHAI, Patna. According to said joint report, the petitioner, Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Yadav has received compensation amount for 0.17168 acres of land and/or 4.6470 decimal of land is in his possession.

¶34

Mrs. Ankita, learned counsel representing ‘the NHAI’, submits that the dispute has arisen due to two different reports, it cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶35

Having heard the parties this Court is inline with

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.1699 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026 4/5

¶37

the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for ‘the NHAI’. The accepted fact is that acquisition took place in the year 2020 for Patna- Gaya four lane in which the aforesaid land of the petitioner was also included.

¶38

An award was prepared (copies not available in the writ petition), the petitioner received compensation to the tune of 5 ½ Kathas.

¶39

In that background, how and under what circumstance, the Amin, namely, Amrendra Kumar Pandey gave a report on 15.08.2024 (Independence Day) (Annexure- P/14 to the writ petition) recording that only 3 Kathas 7 dhur has been acquired while 3 Kathas 13 dhur belongs to the petitioner.

¶40

Subsequent joint report of the Amin and ‘the NHAI’ shows that compensation of 0.1768 acres of land has been made. In that background, the matter has to be adjudicated at the end of the respondent no. 2, the Collector, Patna.

¶41

The petitioner is well advised to approach the said respondent, Collector, Patna in next eight weeks who shall be issuing notice to all the concerned parties including the respondent no. 3, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna and the Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna, beside the officials of ‘the NHAI’ and after hearing the parties, shall finally decide:-

¶42

Patna High Court CWJC No.1699 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026

¶43

5/5

¶44

(i) the actual land of the petitioner;

¶45

(ii) the award that has been prepared with respect to the said land;

¶46

(iii) the compensation amount that the petitioner has been paid/received;

¶47

(iv) whether any land of the petitioner is still left over which has to be handed over to him or not?

¶48

(v) any other point which the learned Collector, Patna may deem fit and proper;

¶49

Needless to add if the Collector, Patna comes to a conclusion that the Amin, namely, Amrendra Kumar Pandey provided a wrong report dated 15.08.2024 and actually played mischief, necessary action be taken against him.

¶50

Expecting the Collector, Patna to take the matter to its logical conclusion at an earliest preferably within a period of six months, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶51

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶52

Ranjeet/-

¶53

U

Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Najama Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithlesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Muna Dewan @ Md. Munna Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Shobha Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar

Moti Singh Vs The State of Bihar