JUDGMENT :

RAJIV ROY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manu Tripurari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, learned AC to GP-26.

(A) PRAYER:

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or order or direction to quash the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Land Revenue Department vide Memo No. 1733, by way of which the Respondent No. 2 has rejected the representation of the petitioner for release of Petitioner's land from land acquisition proceedings;

(ii) for a declaration that the Land Acquisition Proceedings being L.A. Case No. 20/72-73 initiated under the "Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to petitioner's land admeasuring 0.75 Acre comprised in Khata No. 26, Kheara No. 307 has lapsed in view of section 24(2) of Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013 and upon failure of the Respondents to take physical possession;

(iii) for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner under Section 48(2) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding;

(iv) and/or for any other relief, for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts & circumstances of the present case.

(B) FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. The matter relates to a piece of land, the details of which is/are as follows:

(i) khata no. 26;

(ii) kheshra no. 307;

(iii) thana no. 560;

(iv) circle and district-Aurangabad;

(v) area 0-75 decimals.

4. A proposal was made by the Executive Engineer, Building Department, Aurangabad for acquisition of land admeasuring 2 acres and 32 Decimal for the construction of Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Aurangabad. This led to L.A. Case No. 20/72-73 initiated under the Land Acquisiiton Act, 1894 (henceforth for short ‘The Act’) out of 2.32 acres that was to be acquired, 0.75 Acres belonged to the petitioner’s father which was also sought to be acquired.

5. A declaration was made on 11.08.1972. The notices were served upon the land owners whereafter the Department of Revenue (Acquisition Section) published a declaration under section 6 of ‘the Act’ in the official gazette declaring that the land is required for the purpose of construction of Government Girls Middle School (henceforth for short 'the School').

6. Pursuant thereto, a land admeasuring 2:32 acres comprised in Thana no 560, Khata No. 13 and 26, Khesra No. 306 and 307 was acquired and, the Land Acquisition Officer made the award under Section 11 of ‘the Act’. The land of the petitioner remained litigated in which order of the competent Court came only on 04.02.1994.

7. In the meantime, 'the School' was constructed at Dharnidhar Road one kilometer away from the proposed site. It is admitted fact that the compensation was given/received by all the land owners except the petitioner's father and the compensation money was deposited with the Revenue Department in name of the father of the petitioner namely, Ram Naresh Prasad Singh. Another admitted fact is that the land always remained with the petitioners’ family and it was never taken over by the respondents.

8. It is to be noted that vide letter no. 123 DL 12.01.1979, the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar (henceforth for short, ‘the Department’) came up with the notification stating that the purpose for which the land is acquired, if it lapses, then in that case, the acquired land can be returned to the land owners. At this juncture, it is important to incorporate that the land of the petitioner was neither taken over by the respondents nor ever utilized for construction of 'the School' which as stated came up on a different land.

9. Further case of the petition is that on 21.08.2002 the petitioner filed a representation for the release of the land or in the alternative make payment of compensation stating that the construction of ‘the school’ has already taken place at a different place, namely, Dharnidh