Goda Devi @ Savitri Devi@Gado Devi v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1246 of 2026 ====================================================== Goda Devi @ Savitri Devi@Gado Devi Wife of Upendra Sharma, Resident of Village- Gospur, Rajpur, P.S.-Piri Bazar, Block- Suryagarha, DistrictLakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. 2.

The D.R.M. Eastern Railway, D.R.M. Office, Malda, West Bengal. 3.

The State of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Bihar, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.

5.

The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai.

6.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhisarai Sadar, District- Lakhisarai. 7.

The Circle Officer, Suryagarha Anchal, District- Lakhisarai. 8.

The S.H.O., Piri Bazar, Police Station,Lakhisarai ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mayank Bilochan, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Yogendra Pd. Singh, AAG-07 For resp. nos. 1 & 2 :

Mr. Mani Shankar Mishra, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 29-01-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s):

(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondents not to construct the Railways under Pass, over the land of petitioner which is Raiyti/Purchase land of the petitioner.

(ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ restraining the respondents not to make any interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioner.

(iii) for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondent to first acquired the land under the provision of land acquisition act and pay the compensation or vacate the land of the petitioner. (iv) for any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner is entitled.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1246 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026 2/2

3. The petitioner has come with a simple prayer to at least take note of the representation that has been preferred before the different respondents including the Railway Authorities/District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Lakhisarai (Annexure- P/2 and P/3 respectively).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it will suffice if the Collector, Lakhisarai looks into the matter and take a decision after hearing both the petitioner as also railways.

5. The parties including the State and the Railways have no objection.

6. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to approach afresh with all the supporting documents before the Collector, Lakhisarai in next four weeks who shall be noticing the other side including the railways (whose counsel is already present in the Court) and after hearing the parties, shall be disposing of the matter at an earliest taking into account the development that has taken place on the land claimed by the petitioner.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U