Baliram Singh v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land has been taken over for the purpose of Danapur-Bihta Flyover. The claim of the petitioner is that some cubicles/shops were there but ignoring it as also the recommendation of the Six- men Committee, it has…
- Para 1111. Needless to add, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the payment and has accordingly submitted all the documents to satisfy the respondents, it is high time that the payment is released in his favour.
- Para 1212. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Adnan/- U (Rajiv Roy, J)
Judgment
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Respondent/s For the NHAI : :
Mr. Lal Mani Sharma, Advocate Mr. Dilip Kumar Tewari, Advocate Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-7 Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Govinda, Advocate Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 31-03-2026 Heard Mr. Lal Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as also the NHAI.
The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction directing and commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner immediately without any further delay the amount of Compensation for the land of the petitioner pertaining to Khata no. 473, Thana no. 53, Patna High Court CWJC No.18662 of 2025(3) dt.31-03-2026 Plot/Khesra no. 2470, Area 21 Decimals of Mauza Mahadevpur Fulari according to Commercial Rate alongwith 100% Soletium as well as up to date interest as provided under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as RF CTLARR, Act, 2013). (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner immediately, without any further delay the amount of compensation for the damages caused to the petitioner by the respondents by demolishing the construction / house which was constructed by the petitioner and was standing over the aforesaid land of the petitioner, even without paying any amount of compensation to the petitioner for his aforesaid land as well as for the said constructions which has been demolished by the respondents. (iii) For any other relief / reliefs of which the petitioner is legally entitled to.
The details of the land in question is/are as follows: “Khata no. 473, Thana no. 53, Patna High Court CWJC No.18662 of 2025(3) dt.31-03-2026 Plot/Khesra no. 2470, Area 21 Decimals of Mauza Mahadevpur Fulari.”
In the first round of litigation, the petitioner moved before this Court in CWJC No. 11138 of 2023 (Balram Singh vs. The State & Ors.) which was disposed of on 29.03.2024 with a direction to the Collector, Patna to decide the matter (Annexure P/4 to the petition).
5. Accordingly, the Collector, Patna took up the Raiyatikaran Case No. 01 of 2024-25 (Balram Singh vs The State) and disposed it of on 19.10.2024 vide a detailed order recording that in the light of the recommendation made by the Circle Officer, Bihta and the DCLR, Danapur, the land in question is declared raiyati and the respondents to take further steps in the matter. (Annexure-P/5 to the petition).
Aggrieved, the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land has been taken over for the purpose of Danapur-Bihta Flyover. The claim of the petitioner is that some cubicles/shops were there but ignoring it as also the recommendation of the Six- men Committee, it has been put in the category of residential land and accordingly, direction is given to make payment.
The respondents have filed their affidavits and learned State counsel with the help of paragraph nos. 11 and 14 Patna High Court CWJC No.18662 of 2025(3) dt.31-03-2026 submits that on the basis of the report submitted, the Collector, Patna has taken decision which needs no interference. Further, if aggrieved, the petitioner can approach the Arbitrator-cum- Commissioner, Patna Division under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956.
The facts and the submissions have been recorded, the respondents have detailed out their stand by way of the order passed by the Collector, Patna.
If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is well advised to approach the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna for the redressal of the grievance.
Needless to add, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the payment and has accordingly submitted all the documents to satisfy the respondents, it is high time that the payment is released in his favour.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Adnan/- U (Rajiv Roy, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.