Case Background
This case arises from acquisition of village land in District Siwan for construction of the Ram Janki Path, treated as NH-227A (Siwan–Masrakh), a four-lane road scheme.
The appellant claimed that his ancestral land at Mauza-Sarangpur, Thana No. 537, Khata Nos. 516 and 217, Khesra Nos. 291, 290, 288, 289, 295, 296, 297, 299 and 300 was acquired for this project in Land Acquisition Case No. 13 of 2021–22. An award was prepared in that land acquisition case.
According to the appellant, the land originally belonged to one Chandradev Mishra, his maternal forefather. After family partition, this land allegedly fell to the appellant’s share, and he stated that he had been in cultivating possession for about 40 years.
When he learnt that his co-sharers were trying to obtain the entire compensation in their own favour, he filed objections before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan, claiming ownership and right to compensation. He also submitted relevant documents in support of his claim.
The appellant first gave a written application on 11.03.2022. Later, he submitted another application before the District Magistrate, Siwan, requesting payment of the compensation amount to him. These applications were produced in the writ petition as Annexures 1 and 2.
On the appellant’s application, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan issued Memo No. 1011 dated 07.08.2024 to the Circle Officer, Maharajganj, asking for a detailed report on the appellant’s claim and the Circle Officer’s opinion regarding payment of compensation. In response, the Circle Officer, Maharajganj submitted a report dated 09.09.2024, which was annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 4.
The appellant’s case was that this report clearly stated that he had a share in the land, that he was entitled to compensation and that no dispute was pending regarding the land.
Despite these steps, the appellant alleged that he approached the office of the District Land Acquisition Officer several times but no action was taken to release compensation in his favour or to properly decide the dispute.
Left with no other remedy, the appellant filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19752 of 2024 before a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court. He sought a mandamus directing the authorities to immediately pay him compensation for the acquired land, along with penal interest at 24% per annum.
The learned Single Judge heard the matter on 23.01.2025. On that date, according to the appeal judgment, the State’s counsel argued that the land was recorded in the name of the appellant’s maternal grandfather and that the sons of the maternal grandfather were in possession. It was submitted that there was no dispute over the land and that the Circle Officer’s enquiry report did not suggest that the land belonged to the appellant.
On this basis, and after looking at the Circle Officer’s report, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The writ court did not issue any direction for reference of the dispute to any other forum.
Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 2025 before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, challenging the single judge’s order dated 23.01.2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar, heard the appeal and pronounced oral judgment on 26.02.2026.
The central grievance placed before the Bench was not only about non-payment of compensation but also about the failure of the Collector to refer the compensation dispute to the proper Authority under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the Circle Officer, Maharajganj had conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report dated 09.09.2024. According to counsel, this report confirmed the appellant’s rightful claim to compensation and stated that objections raised during the acquisition process were baseless and had been resolved in the appellant’s favour.
On the legal side, counsel for the appellant relied on specific provisions of the 2013 Act dealing with disputes about apportionment of compensation. The argument was that when there is a dispute regarding who should receive compensation or how it should be shared, the Collector is required to refer such dispute to the designated Authority under the 2013 Act.
The appellant’s case was that this statutory course had not been followed. Because the Collector and other authorities did not take steps to refer the matter, the appellant approached the High Court by way of the writ petition, seeking judicial direction. He contended that the learned Single Judge dismissed his petition without cogent reasons and in a perverse manner, justifying interference in the LPA.
The Division Bench considered the statutory framework of the 2013 Act in some detail.
First, it referred to Section 76 of the Act, which addresses “dispute as to the apportionment”. This section states that when compensation has been settled but a dispute arises about its apportionment, or about the persons to whom it is payable, the Collector may refer such disputes to the “Authority”.
Next, the Bench noted Section 3(f) of the Act, which defines “Authority” as the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority established under Section 51 of the Act.
Section 51 empowers the appropriate Government, by notification, to establish one or more such Authorities for speedy disposal of disputes relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement. The Government is required to specify the areas over which each Authority will have jurisdiction, particularly for references under Section 64 and certain applications.
The Bench then referred to Section 63 of the 2013 Act. This section bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of any dispute relating to land acquisition that the Collector or the Authority is empowered to decide under the Act. It also prohibits any court from granting injunctions in such matters.
By drawing attention to this statutory scheme, the Division Bench highlighted that disputes about who is entitled to compensation must be addressed within the special framework of the 2013 Act and not through ordinary civil court proceedings.
After examining these provisions, the Court evaluated the appellant’s submission that the Collector should have referred the dispute to the Authority. The Bench observed that this submission had “substantial force”. In other words, in view of Sections 76, 3(f), 51 and 63 of the Act, the Collector ought not to have simply left the matter unresolved when rival claims to compensation existed. Instead, the proper course was to make a reference to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority.
The Division Bench also found that the learned Single Judge should not have rejected the appellant’s plea for such a reference. The Court held that the appellant’s prayer “should not have been rejected” by the Single Judge and noted “perversity” in the order dated 23.01.2025.
Consequently, after hearing both sides, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWJC No. 19752 of 2024.
Having set aside the writ court’s order, the Bench then issued specific directions to the administrative authorities. It directed that respondent no. 4, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Siwan, must act on the certified copy of the appellate judgment as soon as it is produced before him and “shall now refer the dispute to the Competent Authority.”
The Court further ordered that the concerned Authority shall take a decision “expeditiously in accordance with law.” This makes clear that, after the reference is made, it is for the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority to decide who is legally entitled to the compensation and on what basis.
Very importantly, the Division Bench expressly clarified that it was not deciding the merits of the appellant’s claim. The judgment states that the Court has “expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the appellant regarding his entitlement to get compensation.”
This means the High Court did not hold that the appellant is the owner or that he must be paid. It only ensured that his claim, and any rival claims, will be decided by the proper statutory Authority, as required under the 2013 Act.
With these observations and directions, the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for landowners and families in Bihar whose land has been acquired for roads or other projects but where there is a dispute over who should receive compensation.
The Patna High Court has reinforced that when there is a dispute about division or entitlement to compensation under the 2013 land acquisition law, the Collector cannot ignore it or leave parties to fight elsewhere. The dispute must be referred to the special Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority created under the Act.
For affected villagers, this means that if co-sharers, relatives or others claim the same compensation, the Collector has a duty to send the matter to the Authority rather than delay payment indefinitely or rely only on internal reports.
The decision also shows that the High Court can correct a situation where a writ court refuses to direct such a reference despite the clear scheme of the 2013 Act. Yet, at the same time, the Court has been careful not to substitute itself for the Authority by deciding ownership or entitlement on its own.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: When there is a dispute over who is entitled to compensation for acquired land, is the Collector required to refer the dispute to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under the 2013 Act?
Answer: The Division Bench held that, in view of Sections 76, 3(f), 51 and 63 of the 2013 Act, the appellant’s submission that the Collector ought to have referred the dispute to the Authority “has got substantial force”, and the writ court should not have rejected the prayer for such a reference. - Issue: Was the learned Single Judge justified in dismissing the writ petition seeking reference of the dispute to the Authority?
Answer: No. The Division Bench found “perversity” in the single judge’s order dated 23.01.2025, set it aside, and directed the District Magistrate-cum-Collector to refer the dispute to the competent Authority.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No earlier judicial precedents are cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment. The Court’s reasoning is based on statutory provisions of the 2013 Act.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 2025 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19752 of 2024
Case Title: Kashinath Mishra v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 1
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice (Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 26.02.2026
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Waliur Rahman, Advocate; Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Gaurav Singh, Advocate; Mr. Abhijit Gautam, Advocate
Advocate for the State (Respondents): Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking payment of land acquisition compensation and reference of apportionment dispute to the Authority under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.i
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
