IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.457 of 2026 ======================================================

Santosh Kumar Bhuwania ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (24)

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

3 13-03-2026 Heard Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):

“(i) for quashing order dated

10.06.2025 passed by the Collector, Madhepura in Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No.01/2025 whereby and where under, the Collector, Madhepura has directed for the calculation of compensation for the land pertaining to Khata No.197, Plot Nos. 1493, 1494 and 1495 situated in Mauza-Udakishunganj, Madhepura (belonging to the petitioners), in terms of a communication contained in Letter No. 1377 dated 21.10.2024 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna ignoring all settled principles of law as also the decisions rendered by this Hon'ble Court as also the Hon'ble Apex Court.

(ii) for directing the respondents to act in terms of proviso to Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the RFCTLARR Act, 2013) and issue notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and thereafter determine the compensation as per the current market value of the lands and to pay the same to the petitioners.

(iii) for a declaration that the letter No. 1377 dated 21.10.24 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna is not applicable to the case of petitioners in as much as in the present case, acquisition proceedings were initiated when the land in question was already declared surplus under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and therefore at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioners were not the owners of the land.

(iv) for declaring and holding that the actions of the state respondents is violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India in as much as they have deprived the petitioners who were found entitled to compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, of a fair compensation for the forceful acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wherein for the fault of the State no compensation could be paid and no award was prepared. 'Money is what money can buy' and under the circumstances shifting the date of calculation of Market Value of land to the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 (i.e. 1989 in the present case)

is highly malicious and arbitrary as the Market value at the time of the Notification in the present case has no worth when the petitioner was deprived of his rightful claim for more than 35 years and after 35 years when they were finally found entitled to the compensation under RFCTLARR Act, 2013, by virtue of the letter in question the determination of compensation is being made as per the market value of the land in the year 1989. Such a decision is not only unjust but also violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.

(v) for declaring and holding that the order passed by the Collector, dated 10.06.25 is in contravention of the provision contained in Section 26 specially proviso to section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as RFCTLARR Act, 2013).

(vi) for declaring and holding that when the petitioners are found entitled for compensation in terms of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and their case i