Vishwanath Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10716 of 2017 ====================================================== Vishwanath Singh son of Late Saryu Singh resident of village - Bhendeeya, P.S. - Aurangabad M, and District - Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar.

2.

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

3.

The Additional Collector cum Arbitrator, Aurangabad. 4.

The Deputy Collector Land Reform cum the competent Authority, Aurangabad.

5.

The Chief General Manager National Highway II, Aurangabad. 6.

The Project Director, P.I.U., N.H.A.I. Varanasi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Roy-GP18 For the NHAI :

Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate Mr. Anuradha Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 31-01-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):- "for directing to the concerned authorities to pay the compensation by initiating proceeding under "Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the land acquired for construction of 6 lane to National Highway 2 for which the Gazette notification dated 8.12.2010 has been issued but more than 6 years have lapsed but the petitioner has been deprived of getting compensation."

Patna High Court CWJC No.10716 of 2017(2) dt.31-01-2026 2/2

3. The petitioner claims that his land was taken over for the construction of National Highway - 2 pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2010 but the compensation amount was not paid.

4. The counter-affidavit of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 duly signed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad shows that though the lands have been acquired, so far as the petitioner's land is concerned, the same has not been acquired and as such, there is no question of payment of compensation.

5. This Court will go by the statement made by the respondents that the land of the petitioner has not been acquired and as such, he cannot be extended any compensation.

6. If still the petitioner has any case, he can very well approach the appropriate authority/Court for the redressal of the grievance.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U