Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ACJ. and PARTHA SARTHY, J.
LPA Nos. 45, 47, 54, 65, 68, 86, 126, 136, 302, 310, 311, 315, 320, 321, 323, 324, 327, 355, 357, 358, 377, 381, 383, 409, 416 of 2024 in CWJC No.7579, 4562, 7641, 7726, 7650, 8427, 8577, 4562, 8427, 8577, 7650, 7579, 7641, 7726, 7579, 8427 of 2022 with 4403, 4575, 1801, 4478, 8216 of 2023 with MJC No. 521 of 2024 in CWJC
No. 4562 of 2022
(27.2.2025)
Ranjeet Kumar & Ors. (in 45)
Lalita Devi (in 47, 521)
Usha Devi & Ors. (in 54)
Meena Devi & Ors. (in 65)
Ranjana Sinha & Ors. (in 68)
Rajnish Kumar (in 86)
Raj Laxmi Bhushan & Ors. (in 126)
Sunil Kumar Amar & Ors. (in 136)
State of Bihar & Ors.
(in 302, 321, 323, 324, 327)
Birendra Kumar Singh & Ors. (in 310)
Santosh Kumar & Ors. (in 311)
Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
& Ors. (in 315, 355, 357, 358,
377, 381, 383)
Indu Devi & Ors. (in 320)
Rajni Devi & Ors. (in 409)
Mani Kumari & Ors. (in 416)
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. (in 45, 47, 54, 65, 68, 86, 126, 136, 310, 311, 320, 409, 416, 521)
Lalita Devi & Ors. (in 302, 315)
Raj Laxmi Bhushan & Ors.(in 321, 377)
Sunil Kumar Amar & Ors. (in 323, 383)
Rajnish Kumar & Ors. (in 324, 381)
Ranjeet Kumar & Ors. (in 327, 358)
Usha Devi & Ors. (in 355)
Meena Devi & Ors. (in 357)
M/s Amit Sibbal, Sr. Adv., Alka Singh, Sumit Kumar Singh, Abhiprav Singh, Shivam Singh, Kumar Vikram, Kumar Avinahs, Deepali Singh, Shatakshi Sahay, Ankur Vyas, Vinay Tripathi, Darpan Sachdeva(in 45, 47, 54, 65, 126, 136, 310, 311, 320, 409, 416, 521); Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Varun Krishna Singh(in 68, 86); Anirudh Kumar Verma, Vyas Kr. Mishra(in 86); Sushant Praveer (AC to SC-9)(in 302); Yogesh Kumar (A.C. To S.C.9)(in 321, 323, 324, 327); S. D Sanjay, Sr. Adv., Mohit Agarwal, Lokesh Kumar(in 315) 355, 357, 358, 377, 381, 383); Kanishka Shankar (in 381); Kanishka Shankar(in 383).
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Sections 11 & 19 – Acquisition of land for the Patna Metro Rail Project – A prior notice informing that the State intends to acquire is necessary which notice ought to be clear, cogent and meaningful – Equally important would then be the right of the property bearer to communicate his objections and concerns to the authority acquiring property which process must be meaningful and not a mere sham – One of the inherent and an important fetter on the discretion of the authorities to acquire is that acquisition must be for a public purpose – Any deprivation of property right is permissible only upon restitution – Since the process of acquisition may be traumatic for many, there should not be any administrative delays and process must be efficient and expeditious – The process must be taken to its conclusion which is acquisition of the property and payment of compensation – In the instant case, the land owners were noticed; their objections were heard; they were informed about the rejection of their objections and; they were also heard with respect to suggestion regarding other sites – The compensation amount has been fixed and the process has been speeded up to perhaps the maximum possible limit – The Metro line should be functional without any delay – So far quantum of compensation is concerned, revising the MVR/Circle Rates which are of the year 2014 is urgently needed – However, updating the Circle Rates require time and in the present circumstance, time would be the essence especially if seen in the context of the land owners who have been diverted of thin land who would require money urgently for their resettlement – The procedure adopted by the State in comparing the MVR rates with the sale deeds exemplars in the last three years and the highest being given to the land owners appears to be absolutely justified – Therefore, the acquisition is for public purposes and the objections of the land owners are not valid – Manner of computation of compensation to be paid to the land owners is justified – Impugned judgment modified with the direction that the MVR/Circle rates of 2014 must be updated, which would be an independent exercise to be carried out by the State after observing the due process in that regard but the payment of compensation would not be contingent on such updation as it would take long time – The appeals on behalf of land owners dismissed whereas the appeals preferred by the State and the Patna Metro Rail Corporation (PMRC) are allowed to the extent indicated. (Paras 49 to 58)
M/s Amit Sibbal, Sr. Adv., Alka Singh, Sumit Kumar Singh, Abhiprav Singh, Shivam Singh, Kumar Vikram, Kumar Avinahs, Deepali Singh, Shatakshi Sahay, Ankur Vyas, Vinay Tripathi, Darpan Sachdeva(in 45, 47, 54, 65, 126, 136, 310, 311, 320, 409, 416, 521); Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Varun Krishna Singh(in 68, 86); Anirudh Kumar Verma, Vyas Kr. Mishra(in 86); Sushant Praveer (AC to SC-9)(in 302); Yogesh Kumar (A.C. To S.C.9)(in 321, 323, 324, 327); S. D Sanjay, Sr. Adv., Mohit Agarwal, Lokesh Kumar(in 315) 355, 357, 358, 377, 381, 383); Kanishka Shankar (in 381); Kanishka Shankar(in 383).
Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Bimal Kumar Sah, (2024) 10 SCC 53; Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2023 Live Law SC 363 – Relied.
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State Patna High Court, L.P.A No.45 of 2024 dt. 27.2.2025 54/71 of Maharashtra through Government Pleader, (WP No. 3337 of 2019); Ramji Veerji Patel vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, (2011) 10 SCC 643; G. Narsingh Rao vs. National Highways Authority of India Ltd., (SLA (C) No. 9314-9315/2022 – Distinguished.
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punja, (2016) 11 SCC 356; Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs. Jadishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65; Nand Kishore Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 282; G. Narsing Rao (Died) through LRS vs. National Highway Authority of India, (SLP (C) Nos. 9314-9315/2022); Ramji Veerji Patel vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, (2011) 10 SCC 643; Ramniklal N. Bhutta vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134; State of Haryana vs. Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 12 SCC 265; Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1143; Urban Development Trust, Bikaner vs. Gordhan Das (dead) Through LR, (2024) 3 SCC 250; Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Bimal Kumar Shah, (2024) 10 SCC 533; D.B. Basnett vs. Collector, East District Gangtok, Sikkim, (2020) 4 SCC 572; Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569; Dinesh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) SCC Online SC 937; Patna High Court, L.P.A No. 45 of 2024, dt.27.2.2025 61/71 Kamal Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 2 SCC 25; Rajesh K vs. Managing Director, Kerala Rail Development Corporation, (WP(C) 41009/22 (Kerala High Court); Manekbben Rama Tandel vs. The Collector, Daman, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Daman and Diu, (MANU/MH/1796/2023) – Referred.
Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ.—There are three set of appeal which are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The land owners have challenged the acquisition of their lands in Mauja Pahari and Ranipur for construction of Patna Metro Rail Yard on account of non-compliance of provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called “the Act of 2013”) which was rejected by the learned Single Judge. However, with respect to quantum of compensation to be paid to the land owners, it has been directed that the un-revised MVR/Circle Rates be revisited first taking into consideration all relevant factors including the opinion of the experts, whereupon only the compensation amount to the land owners be refixed and paid on the basis of revised MVR/Circle Rates.
3. On the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement, the State Government and the Collector, Patna have been directed to consider the recommendation of the Expert Committee.
4. This part of the judgment has been challenged by the State of Bihar and Patna Metro Rail Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “PMRC”)
5. The introductory facts are as follows:—
After the approval of Patna Metro Rail Project (PMRP) on 09.10.2018 by the Cabinet of the State of Bihar, land was required to be acquired.
6. M/s Rail India Technical and Economic Services (RITES) gave the proposal for two depots to be constructed.
7. It would be worthwhile to mention that in the year 2019, the work of construction of metro rail and depot in Patna was given by Patna Metro Rail Corporation Limited (PMRCL) to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) which was approved by the State of Bihar. The DMRC, thereafter, made changes in the line alignment of Patna metro on 08.02.2020. The location of metro depot from two suggested locations was also changed to one location at Mauza-Pahari and Ranipur, for which land was sought to be and was acquired under the 2013 Act.
8. The Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar vide office order dated 17.03.2020 outlined the reasons for relocation of the metro depot citing that depot at earlier location would have resulted in demolition of many houses, disturbing the drainage system and the present location would have seamless integration with ISBT and metro depot. It was also notified that 11.06 hectares of land would be required for the purposes of property development area.
9. The revised detailed project report was approved by the State and the Central Government. 10. The objection hearing on the Social Impact Assessment Report was held on 04.06.2021 and the report of the Social Impact Assessment was prepared and published on 14.06.2021. Thereafter, an expert committee was constituted on 23.06.2021 which submitted its report on 30.06.2021. Thereafter the notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act was issued on 23.10.2021.
11. Objections were filed by the land owners on 23.12.2011 which were rejected. Finally, the declaration notification under Section 19 of the 2013 Act was published on 11.05.2022. The award under Sections 23 and 30 of the 2013 Act was published on 04.08.2022.
12. Many of the land owners / writ petitioners / appellants approached this Court for quashing of the land acquisition notice issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act with respect to 75.96 acres of land; for setting aside the Social Impact Assessment Report prepared by the Development Management Institute, Patna; quashing of the formation of technical expert committee constituted under Section 7 of 2013 Act as also its report dated 30.06.2021; for quashing the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO), Patna for quashing paper publication under Section 19 of 2013 Act as also the award dated 04.08.2023 prepared in Land Acquisition Case No. 29 / 2021-22 under Sections 23 and 30 of 2013 Act.
13. On behalf of the writ petitioners/land owners it was argued before the learned Single Judge that the decisi
Point of Law; Executive is expected to follow the 'Rule of law'. It cannot be gainsaid that in several cases, where fauity executive decisions are implemented lead to irreversible eventualities as in....
State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings would not lapse even if the award was passed after the prescribed period under Section 11A, and the relocation pol....
If there is failure to publish notification in two daily newspapers, notification and consequential proceedings for acquiring land would stand vitiated for non-compliance of essential conditions of S....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
