Writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite alternative remedies when fundamental rights are at stake.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

6 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-

“(I) For issuance of a writ, in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to pay the appropriate compensation money in lieu of acquiring the petitioner’s land at the present compensation rate in terms of Land Acquisition Act .

(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing to pay due rental amount of the compensation arising out of land being made in use by the State without paying the compensation i.e. without proper acquisition for the period taking in respondent’s use and possession till the land acquisition process is complete, which is as yet to complete in want of the payment of compensation.

(iii) For passing any appropriate order in the facts and circumstances stated hereinabve.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been deprived from his rightful claim of due compensation for the land, which has been acquired for the purpose of for construction of a project, namely, NH-30-Patna-Bakhtiyarpur Section. The petitioner is concerned for due payment of compensation in respect of his land measuring total area of 4.75 decimals, appertaining to Thana No.144, Khata No.38, Khesra No.448.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner himself is responsible for not receiving due compensation. Petitioner has not denied the fact that other persons in the vicinity have not been paid the due compensation. Petitioner has himself delayed and has directly approached this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Heard the parties.

6. It is commonly seen that the officers having quasi judicial power on their administrative side often delay in considering the representation filed by the aggrieved person or they deliberately delay to even adjudicate those cases where they exercise their adjudicatory power, while, it is well settled principle of law that High Courts should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective and efficacious remedy is available. Taking into the circumstances of the present case where fundamental/constitutional right of a citizen is infringed, this Court must not fail to exercise its power under of the .

7. It is also well settled principle of law that every administrative action in want of reason is not sustainable as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinbelow:

“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judici