SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1833

PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. SHAILENDRA SINGH, J
Parikshit Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Government of India – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10291 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dilip Kumar Tewari, Adv., Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Navnit Kumar, AC to GP-18

Failure to update land records during acquisition process led to violation of property rights and resultant compensation for loss and mental agony.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 11(1), 11(5), and 19 - Writ petition challenging land acquisition process for Rail Corridor construction on grounds of improper notification and failure to update land records - The preliminary notification failed to mention the current owner's name and the actual plot number, resulting in a violation of the petitioner’s rights. (Paras 1, 4, 5)

(B) Negligence - The court found negligence on the part of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate in failing to update records and notify the correct current owner, leading to significant financial loss for the petitioner. (Para 5)

(C) Compensation - Directions for payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner for mental agony and loss due to negligence in the acquisition process. The court also ordered for prompt decisions regarding the petitioner’s objection and accurate compensation claims. (Paras 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner owned land designated for acquisition without proper notification to him, despite holding a Land Possession Certificate. The area transitioned from agricultural to commercial use due to an established factory, which was disregarded in the acquisition process.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the procedure followed for land acquisition was flawed and issued monetary relief for negligence and mental distress suffered by the petitioner.

Issues: The primary issues were the improper notification under the RFC Act, consideration of the petitioner as the current landowner, and adequacy of the acquisition compensation process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that failure to notify the current owner and update the land records constitutes a violation of statutory provisions under the RFC Act, warranting compensation and corrective measures.

Result: Writ petition allowed with directions for compensation and proper procedural follow-up.

Table of Content
1. land ownership and acquisition details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding land acquisition process. (Para 3 , 4)
3. determination of compensation and negligence of authorities. (Para 5)
4. conclusion and directions for compensation. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Date : 18-12-2025

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of the Notice published on 21-4-2021 under the signature of the respondent no. 3 by which under Section 11 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") the Preliminary Notification has been issued for acquisition of the land of the petitioner for Rail Corridor for Buxar Thermal Power Station.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of the Rail Corridor for Buxar Thermal Power Station and to use the Government land available in the vicinity for the said purpose.

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner the amount of compensation according to market rate by treating the land of the petitioner as commercial in nature with 100% soletium and interest as well as compensation amount for the Factory / Industry situated over the said land of the petitioner if at all the land in question of the petitioner is acquired and also to make available the suitable land to the petitioner to set up his Industry/Factory.

(iv) For any other relief/reliefs of which the petitioner is legally entitled.”

2. Mr. Dilip Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Navnit Kumar, learned AC to GP-18 for the State-respondents, are present and they are heard.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner along with one Sri Raghuveer Singh is the owner/holder of the land pertaining to Plot No. 1698, Khata No. 367, Thana No. 02, measuring 4.97 acres, situated at Mauza- Chausa, in the district of Buxar and to the said effect on 12.12.2019 the Land Possession Certificate (LPC) was issued in favour of the petitioner and Sri Raghuveer Singh. From the perusal of the said LPC (Annexure-1), of which land receipt has been filed as Annexure-2, it is itself evident that till 2019-20 the rent for the said land was paid. Earlier the survey plot Nos. 2038, 2039, 2047, 2048, 2051, 2052, 2055, 2057, 2058, 2077 & 2078 measuring 2.057 acres belonged to others, however, after consolidation proceedings, the said plots were allotted to the petitioner and were included in the plot No. 1698 measuring 4.97 acres and the petitioner along with Raghuveer Singh became the owner of the said land. Learned counsel further submitted that over the said plot No. 1698, by setting up a factory/industry, the petitioner was running his business after getting the registration certificate of the GST issued on 20.09.2017 by the Government of India and a copy of the registration certificate has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition. On the basis of survey done in the year 1906-08, the Khatiyan was prepared in which the said plots were mentioned/described as agricultural land with the name of their respective land holders and thereafter, several years have passed and the entire area/locality has changed and now, in the vicinity of these plots, several commercial activities are being conducted. Learned counsel further submitted that as the petitioner had set up an industry/factory over the land pertaining to Plot No. 1698, so, for conversion of the nature of the said plot from agricultural to commercial, the petitioner had filed a petition before the competent authority upon which the authority vide its order contained in the letter No. 609 dated 16.12.2019 asked the Circle Officer, Chausa, to make an enqu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top