IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3130 of 2026 ======================================================

Shailesh Bhagat @ Shailesh Kumar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Government Advocate (7)

For the BIADA : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Sugar Mill Corp.: Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

2 13-03-2026 Heard the parties.

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

“(i) release of the lands of the petitioner from the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (herein after referred to in short as BIADA), as the lands in question belonging to the petitioner were never acquired by the State of BIADA/Concerned Respondents in terms of Section 4A and 9 of the BIADA Act, 1974 and have illegally been transferred in favour of the BIADA by a mere Notification without giving proper notice (without details of the controversy)

to the petitioner and without considering his contentions on the point of law and facts and as also without following the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act 2013 and for commanding the Respondents to pay the compensation in accordance with the law, if lands of the petitioner is required by the State.

(ii) setting aside all the consequential proceedings/order(s) to the extent to which it declares the petitioner's land in Anchal- Hathua, Mauza-Badarjimi Khata No. 103, Khesra- 255, Jamabandi no. 87 area- 22 decimals respectively to be incorporated in the land of BIADA as Industrial Area i.e. land of S.K.G Distillery along with 105.29 acres of land without service of proper notice.

(iii) holding and declaring that the concerned respondents were not authorized under any Act to transfer the raiyati lands of the present petitioner in favour of the BIADA, especially without initiating any proceedings for transfer in favour of BIADA.

(iv) restraining the respondent authorities from evicting the petitioner from his raiyati lands in question, as the petitioner has been in complete possession of the same, but the concerned Respondents are making physical changes to the property by carrying out construction work over the said property.

(v) granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Admit.

4. Pleadings to be exchanged in next six months.

5. Rule is made returnable within a period of one year.

(Rajiv Roy, J)

vinayak/-

U